Comparison Between Two Methods for Renal Stone Treatment Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Fl… (NCT07306819) | Clinical Trial Compass
RecruitingNot Applicable
Comparison Between Two Methods for Renal Stone Treatment Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Flexible Ureteroscopy With Suction Sheath
Egypt120 participantsStarted 2025-10-15
Plain-language summary
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of two modern, minimally invasive surgical techniques for the removal of kidney stones: Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) and Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) with Flexible and navigable suction sheath
The primary objective is to determine which procedure results in a higher stone-free rate, as measured by post-operative imaging. Secondary objectives include comparing operative time, hospitalization length andcomplication rates between the two treatment groups.
Patients with two to three centimeter kidney stones who are candidates for either procedure will be randomly assigned to undergo either Mini-PCNL or suctioning FURS. The outcomes will be critically assessed to help establish a higher level of evidence for guiding surgical management of kidney stones.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Adult patients aging 18 years old or more.
* Patients with renal stones between 2-3 cm in size confirmed by CT scan.
Exclusion Criteria:
* Patients with previous ureteric injury.
* Patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus or hypertension.
* Patients with uncontrolled hepatic dysfunction.
* Patients with uremia or renal failure.
* Pregnant patients.
* patients with active urinary tract infection.
* Patients with bleeding tendency or uncontrolled coagulopathy.
* Patients with congenital anomalies as horse-shoe kidney and pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction.
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.