Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026

A Two-Step Method for Percutaneous Transhepatic Choledochoscopic Lithotomy
Published on: September 13, 2022
Randomized controlled, multicentre clinical trial comparing a dual-probe ultrasonic lithotrite with a single-probe
Amy E Krambeck1, Nicole L Miller1, Mitchell R Humphreys1
1Methodist Hospital Institute for Kidney Stone Disease, Indianapolis, IN, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TNMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WIDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NCNorthwestern University Medical School, Chicago, ILJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USAThe University of Western Ontario, London, OntarioUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Objectives:
• To compare the Cyberwand (Gyrus/ACMI, Southborough, MA, USA), a dual-probe ultrasonic lithotrite, with a single-probe ultrasonic lithotrite. • The Cyberwand incorporates coaxial high- and low-frequency ultrasonic probes that work synergistically.
Patients And Methods:
• An institutional review board-approved, multicentre, randomized controlled trial to compare the Cyberwand to the Olympus LUS-II (Olympus America, Inc., Melville, NY, USA) single-probe lithotrite was performed. • Patients undergoing a percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with a target stone > 2 cm in diameter were eligible for the study. • The primary outcome was the time to removal of the targeted stone.
Results:
• A total of 57 PCNLs were performed after randomization: 25 Cyberwand and 32 LUS-II. • There was no difference (P > 0.05) observed between the two devices for target stone surface area (Cyberwand 526.6 cm³ vs LUS-II 540.1 cm³), time to clearance of target stone (Cyberwand 15.8 min vs LUS-II 14.2 min) and target stone clearance rate (Cyberwand 61.9 mm²/min vs LUS-II 75.8 mm²/min). • Of the patients with stone analysis, hard stones (calcium oxalate monohydrate, brushite and cystine) were noted in 14 (56.0%) of the 25 Cyberwand and 18 (62.1%) of the 29 LUS-II patients. • Fifteen of the 25 (60.0%) Cyberwand and 20 of the 32 (62.5%) LUS-II patients were stone-free after the initial PCNL. • Those patients not rendered stone-free went on to receive a secondary PCNL. • Device malfunction occurred in eight of 25(32.0%) Cyberwand and five of 32 (15.6%) LUS II patients. • Complications were similar in both treatment groups.
Conclusion:
• No appreciable difference between the dual-probe Cyberwand and the standard ultrasonic Olympus LUS-II lithotrites can be identified.
Related Concept Videos
Urinary Tract Calculi VI: Surgical Management
Imaging Studies V: Intravenous Urography and Retrograde Pyelography
Imaging Studies II: Ultrasonography
