Dr. Roger Sur

standard wolf or your olympus or carl stortz flexible ureterscope it's its own single use scope it's one and done um so there's no wear and tear on your scope and then with fans you could use a reusable scope but you probably want to consider using a single use scope so you're not wearing tearing on that and then this you've got to use your reusable scope with their attachment

standard wolf or your olympus or carl stortz flexible ureterscope it's its own single use scope it's one and done um so there's no wear and tear on your scope and then with fans you could use a reusable scope but you probably want to consider using a single use scope so you're not wearing tearing on that and then this you've got to use your reusable scope with their attachment

So across the board, one thing has been clear, and this came out in a systematic review, that the use of suction devices, just broadly speaking, achieves two things. Number one, higher stone-free rates, and number two, lower infection rates. So irregardless of what you're going to use, Adidia, you're going to achieve potentially an advantage there. So I think that's nice.

So across the board, one thing has been clear, and this came out in a systematic review, that the use of suction devices, just broadly speaking, achieves two things. Number one, higher stone-free rates, and number two, lower infection rates. So irregardless of what you're going to use, Adidia, you're going to achieve potentially an advantage there. So I think that's nice.

So across the board, one thing has been clear, and this came out in a systematic review, that the use of suction devices, just broadly speaking, achieves two things. Number one, higher stone-free rates, and number two, lower infection rates. So irregardless of what you're going to use, Adidia, you're going to achieve potentially an advantage there. So I think that's nice.

We've moved the needle forward that, look, we're getting better stone-free rates and lower complications. Now the question is, well, which of these devices is better, right? Which one achieves better stone-free rates? Which one has less, reduces morbidity more? And the problem is we don't have comparative trials. I will say the CVAC, we do have that. We have a multi-institutional Aspire trial.

We've moved the needle forward that, look, we're getting better stone-free rates and lower complications. Now the question is, well, which of these devices is better, right? Which one achieves better stone-free rates? Which one has less, reduces morbidity more? And the problem is we don't have comparative trials. I will say the CVAC, we do have that. We have a multi-institutional Aspire trial.

We've moved the needle forward that, look, we're getting better stone-free rates and lower complications. Now the question is, well, which of these devices is better, right? Which one achieves better stone-free rates? Which one has less, reduces morbidity more? And the problem is we don't have comparative trials. I will say the CVAC, we do have that. We have a multi-institutional Aspire trial.

It was made up of 11 institutions. And their 30-day results demonstrated benefit of a higher stone-free rate for the CVAC over ureteroscopy. It was a comparison of just standard ureteroscopy basketing versus CVAC. And the CVAC appeared to be better. This is the 1.0, not the newer one that we have out there. But we don't have a CVAC versus FANS versus DIS study to date yet.

It was made up of 11 institutions. And their 30-day results demonstrated benefit of a higher stone-free rate for the CVAC over ureteroscopy. It was a comparison of just standard ureteroscopy basketing versus CVAC. And the CVAC appeared to be better. This is the 1.0, not the newer one that we have out there. But we don't have a CVAC versus FANS versus DIS study to date yet.

It was made up of 11 institutions. And their 30-day results demonstrated benefit of a higher stone-free rate for the CVAC over ureteroscopy. It was a comparison of just standard ureteroscopy basketing versus CVAC. And the CVAC appeared to be better. This is the 1.0, not the newer one that we have out there. But we don't have a CVAC versus FANS versus DIS study to date yet.

I will make one other comment here. What was very interesting with that ASPIRE trial that I'm talking about was we just published, or we're about to publish, we presented at the World Congress, the one-year data of this. And what they demonstrated was that by using the CVAC 1.0 device, they significantly reduced post-operative events.

I will make one other comment here. What was very interesting with that ASPIRE trial that I'm talking about was we just published, or we're about to publish, we presented at the World Congress, the one-year data of this. And what they demonstrated was that by using the CVAC 1.0 device, they significantly reduced post-operative events.

I will make one other comment here. What was very interesting with that ASPIRE trial that I'm talking about was we just published, or we're about to publish, we presented at the World Congress, the one-year data of this. And what they demonstrated was that by using the CVAC 1.0 device, they significantly reduced post-operative events.

ER visits, readmissions, need for another surgery, stone growth. So again, this kind of gets back to this thing is if we can reduce more stones, will we have a benefit? And sure enough, we did demonstrate this because in the CVEC arm, there were the volume of stones left behind, which was much lower than standard reteroscopy.

ER visits, readmissions, need for another surgery, stone growth. So again, this kind of gets back to this thing is if we can reduce more stones, will we have a benefit? And sure enough, we did demonstrate this because in the CVEC arm, there were the volume of stones left behind, which was much lower than standard reteroscopy.

ER visits, readmissions, need for another surgery, stone growth. So again, this kind of gets back to this thing is if we can reduce more stones, will we have a benefit? And sure enough, we did demonstrate this because in the CVEC arm, there were the volume of stones left behind, which was much lower than standard reteroscopy.

Which actually, if I can kind of pontificate a little bit more on the whole stone free rate thing, which I actually recently wrote an editorial or a response to an editorial in the European Urology. Olivier Traxair, who was one of our thought leaders from Europe in ureteroscopy, he is definitely considered a key opinion leader in our space.

Which actually, if I can kind of pontificate a little bit more on the whole stone free rate thing, which I actually recently wrote an editorial or a response to an editorial in the European Urology. Olivier Traxair, who was one of our thought leaders from Europe in ureteroscopy, he is definitely considered a key opinion leader in our space.

Which actually, if I can kind of pontificate a little bit more on the whole stone free rate thing, which I actually recently wrote an editorial or a response to an editorial in the European Urology. Olivier Traxair, who was one of our thought leaders from Europe in ureteroscopy, he is definitely considered a key opinion leader in our space.