ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Ultrasonic propulsion is an investigational procedure for awake patients. Our purpose was to evaluate whether ultrasonic propulsion to facilitate residual kidney stone fragment clearance reduced relapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial used single block randomization (1:1) without masking. Adults with residual fragments (individually ≤5 mm) were enrolled. Primary outcome was relapse as measured by stone growth, a stone-related urgent medical visit, or surgery by 5 years or study end. Secondary outcomes were fragment passage within 3 weeks and adverse events within 90 days. Cumulative incidence of relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test was used to compare the treatment (ultrasonic propulsion) and control (observation) groups. RESULTS: The trial was conducted from May 9, 2015, through April 6, 2024. Median follow-up (interquartile range) was 3.0 (1.8-3.2) years. The treatment group (n = 40) had longer time to relapse than the control group (n = 42; P < .003). The restricted mean time-to-relapse was 52% longer in the treatment group than in the control group (1530 ± 92 days vs 1009 ± 118 days), and the risk of relapse was lower (hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.68) with 8 of 40 and 21 of 42 participants, respectively, experiencing relapse. Omitting 3 participants not asked about passage, 24 treatment (63%) and 2 control (5%) participants passed fragments within 3 weeks of treatment. adverse events were mild, transient, and self-resolving, and were reported in 25 treated participants (63%) and 17 controls (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic propulsion reduced relapse and added minimal risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO.: NCT02028559.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Our goal was to test transcutaneous focused ultrasound in the form of ultrasonic propulsion and burst wave lithotripsy to reposition ureteral stones and facilitate passage in awake subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult subjects with a diagnosed proximal or distal ureteral stone were prospectively recruited. Ultrasonic propulsion alone or with burst wave lithotripsy was administered by a handheld transducer to awake, unanesthetized subjects. Efficacy outcomes included stone motion, stone passage, and pain relief. Safety outcome was the reporting of associated anticipated or adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects received either ultrasonic propulsion alone (n = 16) or with burst wave lithotripsy bursts (n = 13), and stone motion was observed in 19 (66%). The stone passed in 18 (86%) of the 21 distal ureteral stone cases with at least 2 weeks follow-up in an average of 3.9±4.9 days post-procedure. Fragmentation was observed in 7 of the burst wave lithotripsy cases. All subjects tolerated the procedure with average pain scores (0-10) dropping from 2.1±2.3 to 1.6±2.0 (P = .03). Anticipated events were limited to hematuria on initial urination post-procedure and mild pain. In total, 7 subjects had associated discomfort with only 2.2% (18 of 820) propulsion bursts. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy and safety of using ultrasonic propulsion and burst wave lithotripsy in awake subjects to reposition and break ureteral stones to relieve pain and facilitate passage.