Prospective, Real-World Evaluation of CVAC 2.0 In-Scope Aspiration System Compared with Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath for High-Volume Stone Disease

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To compare stone clearance, stone-free status, and complications between patients undergoing ureteroscopy for renal stones using either Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) or the CVAC 2.0 system. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> A prospective study was completed on patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones at a single institution from March 2024 to December 2024. Subject demographics, intra-op data, volumetric and single-dimension stone clearance on non-contrast CT, and complications were compared. Stone-free rates (SFRs) using standardized cutoffs were compared. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship between preoperative stone volume and postoperative stone burden. Subanalysis was performed for patients with preoperative stone burden >1.5 cm. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 123 cases (CVAC 2.0-36, FANS-87) were included, with 64 eligible for volumetric analysis. Preoperative stone volume was larger in the CVAC group <i>vs</i> FANS (1075 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 397 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Absolute stone clearance was greater in the CVAC group (1016 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 392 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas residual stone volume (4.1 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 15.0 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> = 0.55) and SFRs (90% <i>vs</i> 81%; <i>p</i> = 0.48) were similar. In individuals with >1.5 cm preoperative stone burden, relative stone clearance was greater with CVAC 2.0 (98.9% <i>vs</i> 95.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.026). Pearson correlation analysis revealed positive linear relationship between preoperative stone volume and residual stone volume for FANS, but not for CVAC 2.0. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In this comparative study of FANS and CVAC 2.0, over 95% stone clearance was observed in both groups despite large initial stone burdens. In contrast to FANS, residual stone volumes with CVAC 2.0 did not increase significantly with increasing preoperative stone volumes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Endourology
Published
2025-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/08927790251387343
Primary Topic
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prospective, Real-World Evaluation of CVAC 2.0 In-Scope Aspiration System Compared with Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath for High-Volume Stone Disease

Victoria S. Edmonds, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Karen Stern, Jackson J. S. Cabo et al.
Journal of Endourology
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
article

Prospective, Real-World Evaluation of CVAC 2.0 In-Scope Aspiration System Compared with Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath for High-Volume Stone Disease

Victoria S. Edmonds, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Karen Stern, Jackson J. S. Cabo, Christopher C. Ballantyne
article en

Abstract

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To compare stone clearance, stone-free status, and complications between patients undergoing ureteroscopy for renal stones using either Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) or the CVAC 2.0 system. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> A prospective study was completed on patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones at a single institution from March 2024 to December 2024. Subject demographics, intra-op data, volumetric and single-dimension stone clearance on non-contrast CT, and complications were compared. Stone-free rates (SFRs) using standardized cutoffs were compared. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship between preoperative stone volume and postoperative stone burden. Subanalysis was performed for patients with preoperative stone burden >1.5 cm. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 123 cases (CVAC 2.0-36, FANS-87) were included, with 64 eligible for volumetric analysis. Preoperative stone volume was larger in the CVAC group <i>vs</i> FANS (1075 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 397 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Absolute stone clearance was greater in the CVAC group (1016 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 392 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas residual stone volume (4.1 mm<sup>3</sup> <i>vs</i> 15.0 mm<sup>3</sup>; <i>p</i> = 0.55) and SFRs (90% <i>vs</i> 81%; <i>p</i> = 0.48) were similar. In individuals with >1.5 cm preoperative stone burden, relative stone clearance was greater with CVAC 2.0 (98.9% <i>vs</i> 95.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.026). Pearson correlation analysis revealed positive linear relationship between preoperative stone volume and residual stone volume for FANS, but not for CVAC 2.0. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In this comparative study of FANS and CVAC 2.0, over 95% stone clearance was observed in both groups despite large initial stone burdens. In contrast to FANS, residual stone volumes with CVAC 2.0 did not increase significantly with increasing preoperative stone volumes.

Journal of EndourologyVol. 39(12)
Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.