- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Chew, Ben H."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Randomized controlled trial comparing three different modalities of lithotrites for intracorporeal lithotripsy in pcnl(Liebert, 2017) York, Nadya E.; Borofsky, Michael S.; Chew, Ben H.; Dauw, Casey A.; Paterson, Ryan F.; Denstedt, John D.; Razvi, Hassan; Nadler, Robert B.; Humphreys, Mitchell R.; Preminger, Glenn M.; Nakada, Stephen Y.; Krambeck, Amy E.; Miller, Nicole L.; Terry, Colin; Rawlings, Lori D.; Lingeman, James E.; Department of Urology, School of MedicinePurpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in the North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS‐II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: 270 patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. 201 patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8mm2 vs 577.5mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone size in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p=0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones > 2cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.Item The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes(Wiley, 2023) Henderickx, Michaël M. E. L.; Hendriks, Nora; Baard, Joyce; Wiseman, Oliver J.; Scotland, Kymora B.; Somani, Bhaskar K.; Şener, Tarik E.; Emiliani, Esteban; Dragos, Laurian B.; Villa, Luca; Talso, Michele; Hamri, Saeed Bin; Proietti, Silvia; Doizi, Steeve; Traxer, Olivier; Chew, Ben H.; Eisner, Brian H.; Monga, Manoj; Hsi, Ryan S.; Stern, Karen L.; Leavitt, David A.; Rivera, Marcelino; Wollin, Daniel A.; Borofsky, Michael; Canvasser, Noah E.; Ingimarsson, Johann P.; El Tayeb, Marawan M.; Bhojani, Naeem; Gadzhiev, Nariman; Tailly, Thomas; Durutovic, Otas; Nagele, Udo; Skolarikos, Andreas; Schout, Barbara M. A.; Beerlage, Harrie P.; Pelger, Rob C. M.; Kamphuis, Guido M.; Urology, School of MedicineObjective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and methods: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.