Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of XenX™, the latest ureteric occlusion device with guide wire utility: results from a prospective multicentric comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX—a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS).

Methods

Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5–1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons’ evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures.

Results

Patients’ characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons’ evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for “Ease of Basketing” (2/5) and “Advancement of double J stent” (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals.

Conclusions

XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Knispel HH, Klan R, Heicappell R, Miller K (1998) Pneumatic lithotripsy applied through deflected working channel of miniureteroscope: results in 143 patients. J Endourol 12(6):513–515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML, Segura JW (2003) Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol 170(1):99–102. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000070883.44091.24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bapat SS, Pai KV, Purnapatre SS, Yadav PB, Padye AS (2007) Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol 21(12):1425–1427. doi:10.1089/end.2006.0350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Osorio L, Lima E, Soares J, Autorino R, Versos R, Lhamas A, Marcelo F (2007) Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: why not? Urology 69(1):27–31. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1116 (discussion 31-23)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tunc L, Kupeli B, Senocak C, Alkibay T, Sozen S, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I (2007) Pneumatic lithotripsy for large ureteral stones: is it the first line treatment? Int Urol Nephrol 39(3):759–764. doi:10.1007/s11255-006-9084-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rane A, Sur R, Chew B (2010) Retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy: what’s out there to help? BJU Int 106(5):591–592. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09502.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elashry OM, Tawfik AM (2012) Preventing stone retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 9(12):691–698. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2012.204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarkissian C, Paz A, Zigman O, Webster K, Tamir I, Monga M (2012) Safety and efficacy of a novel ureteral occlusion device. Urology 80(1):32–37. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Montanari E, Longo F, Macchione N, Traxer O (2015) Xenx (Xenolith): preliminary considerations of a new “all-in-one” ureteral guidewire and anti-repulsion device. Urolithiasis 43(2):177–182. doi:10.1007/s00240-014-0740-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Balliol C, Altman DG, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374(9695):1089–1096. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sun Y, Wang L, Liao G, Xu C, Gao X, Yang Q, Qian S (2001) Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi. J Endourol 15(6):587–590. doi:10.1089/089277901750426346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, Patel SH (2002) The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration-the initial clinical experience. J Urol 167(5):1985–1988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gonen M, Cenker A, Istanbulluoglu O, Ozkardes H (2006) Efficacy of dretler stone cone in the treatment of ureteral stones with pneumatic lithotripsy. Urol Int 76(2):159–162. doi:10.1159/000090881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV (2005) Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone. Urol Res 33(1):61–64. doi:10.1007/s00240-004-0453-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maislos SD, Volpe M, Albert PS, Raboy A (2004) Efficacy of the stone cone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 18(9):862–864. doi:10.1089/end.2004.18.862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisner BH, Dretler SP (2009) Use of the stone cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy: case series and review of the literature. Urol Int 82(3):356–360. doi:10.1159/000209372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ding H, Wang Z, Du W, Zhang H (2012) NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(2):130–134. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM (2011) A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology 77(1):30–35. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH (2011) Randomized trial of NTrap for proximal ureteral stones. Urology 77(3):553–557. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee MJ, Lee ST, Min SK (2010) Use of NTrap(R) during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 51(10):719–723. doi:10.4111/kju.2010.51.10.719

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169(3):1065–1069. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000048980.33855.90 (discussion 1069)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contribution

F. Sanguedolce involved in protocol/project development, data collection, management, data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. E. Montanari and O. Traxer involved in protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. M. Alvarez-Maestro, N. Macchione and S. Hruby involved in protocol/project development and data collection. A. Papatsoris involved in protocol/project development, data collection and manuscript editing. P. Kallidonis, P. Honeck and L. Villa involved in protocol/project development and data collection. F. Greco: protocol/project development, data collection and manuscript writing/editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Francesco Sanguedolce

  2. San Paolo Hospital, University of Milano, Milan, Italy

    Emanuele Montanari & Nicola Macchione

  3. Infanta Sofia University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    Mario Alvarez-Maestro

  4. Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Stephan Hruby

  5. Sismanoglio General Hospital, Athens, Greece

    Athanasios Papatsoris

  6. Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece

    Panagiotis Kallidonis & Olivier Traxer

  7. Tenon University Hospital, Paris, France

    Luca Villa

  8. Sindelfingen-Böblingen Clinic, Boblingen, Germany

    Patrick Honeck

  9. Romolo Hospital, Rocca di Neto, Italy

    Francesco Greco

  10. Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK

    Francesco Sanguedolce

Authors
  1. Francesco Sanguedolce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emanuele Montanari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mario Alvarez-Maestro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Macchione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephan Hruby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Athanasios Papatsoris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Panagiotis Kallidonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luca Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick Honeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Olivier Traxer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Francesco Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

EAU Young Academic Urologists- Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Sanguedolce.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Prof E. Montanari is Olympus stone advisory board; Prof O. Traxer is consultant for Olympus, Coloplast, Rocamed and Boston Sc.; Dr. F. Sanguedolce received grants from Xenolith in 2013 in support of registration fees for the EAU Annual Meeting and the World Congress of Endourology.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanguedolce, F., Montanari, E., Alvarez-Maestro, M. et al. Use of XenX™, the latest ureteric occlusion device with guide wire utility: results from a prospective multicentric comparative study. World J Urol 34, 1583–1589 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1806-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1806-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation