Fragmentation Vs Dusting With FANS for Renal Stones Less Than 2cm: A Randomized Controlled Study
NCT07639385 · Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 86
Last updated 2026-06-30
Summary
The use of FANS has changed the operative landscape of RIRS by allowing continuous active suction-assisted clearance of ablated stone material in real time. Use of fragmentation technique in FANS requires high-energy to reduce stone burden into small fragments, followed by active suction of residual fine material. Dusting with FANS, on the other hand, converts the entire stone volume into sub-millimetre particulate that is continuously suctioned away during lasing potentially offering a more streamlined workflow with potentially less energy usage, reduced mechanical stress on the ureteroscope working channel, and fewer scope withdrawals. The combination of TFL dusting with FANS-assisted real-time evacuation may produce stone-free outcomes equivalent or superior to fragmentation, while offering these additional operative efficiencies.
Whether dusting using TFL with FANS is non-inferior or indeed superior to fragmentation using TFL with FANS in terms of stone-free rate at one month has not been evaluated in prospective randomised trial yet. This study aims to answer that specific question in patients with renal stone less than 2 cm.
Conditions
- Thulium Fiber Laser
- Fans
- Lithotripsy, Laser
- Renal Stone
Interventions
- PROCEDURE
-
Dusting
Dusting employs low pulse energy (0.6-0.8 J) at higher frequency (12-15 Hz) to ablate the stone into sub-millimetre powder particles.
- PROCEDURE
-
Fragmentation
Fragmentation involves delivering high pulse energy (typically 0.6-0.8 J) at low frequency (5-10 Hz) to reduce calculi into retrievable fragments of less than 4 mm.
Sponsors & Collaborators
-
Bir Hospital
lead OTHER_GOV
Study Design
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Model
- PARALLEL
Eligibility
- Min Age
- 18 Years
- Sex
- ALL
- Healthy Volunteers
- No
Timeline & Regulatory
- Start
- 2026-08-01
- Primary Completion
- 2027-08-01
- Completion
- 2027-08-07
More Related Trials
-
DISS vs FANS in Suction-Assisted RIRS for Medium-Sized Renal Stones
NCT07516535 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
FANS vs Standard Ureteral Access Sheath in fURS
NCT07463157 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison of Flexible & Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath vs. Antegrade Suction in Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy for Lower Calyceal Stones
NCT06889051 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Utilizing Holmium Laser for FURS Renal Stone Lithotripsy Comparing Stone Breaking vs. Stone Dusting Settings
NCT02683993 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) vs Conventional Access Sheaths in RIRS: A Prospective Randomized Study.
NCT07377461 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
FANS-FURS vs Suction Mini-PCNL for 2-3 cm Renal Stones: A Multicenter Randomized Trial
NCT07295860 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
A Comparative Study Between the Usage of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Traditional Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgeries
NCT07076589 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Effect of Complete Suction-Induced Collapse of the Renal Collecting System at the End of RIRS on Early Postoperative Outcomes
NCT07535281 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Sheathless, Traditional, and Suction Access Sheath RIRS for Renal Stones ≤2 cm
NCT07289230 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
High Powered Stone Dusting vs. Fragmentation and Basketing at Time of Ureteroscopy
NCT05006937 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Effect of Negative Pressure Suction on Fluid Absorption and Infection in Flexible Ureteroscopy
NCT07492147 ·Status: RECRUITING
-
7.5F Versus 9.2F Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Treatment of 1-2cm Renal Calculi on Postoperative Infection
NCT05231577 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
FANS-Assisted Mini-PCNL for Complex Renal Stones
NCT07332286 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Accuracy of Ultrasound for Detecting Residual Fragments During RIRS
NCT05535816 ·Status: TERMINATED ·Phase: NA
-
Are the Stone Density and Location Useful Parameters for Small Kidney Stones?
NCT03503539 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Which Patinets Benefit More From Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy? A Location-Based Comparative Analysis of PCNL and RIRS for 1-2 cm Renal Stones
NCT07589153 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) With Suction
NCT06786715 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Flexible Ureteroscopy With a Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for 1-2 cm Lower Pole Kidney Stones
NCT07159035 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Intrarenal Pressure Monitoring Via Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery
NCT06729801 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
RIRS Versus ESWL for the Treatment of Renal Stones
NCT02645058 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Long Pulse Versus Short Pulse Laser Dusting for Renal Stones
NCT03608098 ·Status: WITHDRAWN ·Phase: NA
-
RIRS With Tip Flexible Pressure-controlling Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Mini PCNLfor Kidney Stones
NCT06209931 ·Status: RECRUITING
-
COMPARISON OF FANS VS CONVENTIONAL URETERAL ACCESS SHEATH in RIRS on POSTOPERATIVE ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY
NCT07685587 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Super-Pulsed Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium:YAG Laser in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Ureteral and Renal Stones
NCT07012941 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Investigate the Renal Movement by Single Lung Ventilation in Patients Administered RIRS for Kidney Stones.
NCT03060837 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA