Dr. Roger Sur

He wrote an article saying, you know, stone free rates are nice. But the problem with the stone-free rate is it's kind of a binary. It's a binary outcome. You're either stone-free or you're not stone-free. So the goal, obviously, is to get everyone stone-free. But what if you're not stone-free? Does it matter if you leave a little bit behind or a lot behind? And he suggested, you know what?

He wrote an article saying, you know, stone free rates are nice. But the problem with the stone-free rate is it's kind of a binary. It's a binary outcome. You're either stone-free or you're not stone-free. So the goal, obviously, is to get everyone stone-free. But what if you're not stone-free? Does it matter if you leave a little bit behind or a lot behind? And he suggested, you know what?

He wrote an article saying, you know, stone free rates are nice. But the problem with the stone-free rate is it's kind of a binary. It's a binary outcome. You're either stone-free or you're not stone-free. So the goal, obviously, is to get everyone stone-free. But what if you're not stone-free? Does it matter if you leave a little bit behind or a lot behind? And he suggested, you know what?

Instead of looking at the size of a stone, like a 2-millimeter, 3-millimeter, or 4-millimeter, isn't a stone a three-dimensional object? Shouldn't we be looking at volume of stone? And you think about it, it totally makes sense. It's the volume of the stone that probably makes a lot more sense than the two-dimensional. We're kind of dumbing it down when really we should be looking at volume.

Instead of looking at the size of a stone, like a 2-millimeter, 3-millimeter, or 4-millimeter, isn't a stone a three-dimensional object? Shouldn't we be looking at volume of stone? And you think about it, it totally makes sense. It's the volume of the stone that probably makes a lot more sense than the two-dimensional. We're kind of dumbing it down when really we should be looking at volume.

Instead of looking at the size of a stone, like a 2-millimeter, 3-millimeter, or 4-millimeter, isn't a stone a three-dimensional object? Shouldn't we be looking at volume of stone? And you think about it, it totally makes sense. It's the volume of the stone that probably makes a lot more sense than the two-dimensional. We're kind of dumbing it down when really we should be looking at volume.

So that I think is one of the futures is to look at how much stone are you leaving behind, you know, and not just in two dimensions, but in three dimensions. which is you can see there's emerging research that's demonstrating the importance of volume.

So that I think is one of the futures is to look at how much stone are you leaving behind, you know, and not just in two dimensions, but in three dimensions. which is you can see there's emerging research that's demonstrating the importance of volume.

So that I think is one of the futures is to look at how much stone are you leaving behind, you know, and not just in two dimensions, but in three dimensions. which is you can see there's emerging research that's demonstrating the importance of volume.

So I think when you're going to see that more and more that people be talking about volume of stone that's been removed and how much volume is left behind and how that translates to all those things that you were talking about post-op problems.

So I think when you're going to see that more and more that people be talking about volume of stone that's been removed and how much volume is left behind and how that translates to all those things that you were talking about post-op problems.

So I think when you're going to see that more and more that people be talking about volume of stone that's been removed and how much volume is left behind and how that translates to all those things that you were talking about post-op problems.

I think we need you in endourology. It's not too late to convert over. Clearly, with even very little time spent, you already have some good insight into identifying problems that I haven't even thought about.

I think we need you in endourology. It's not too late to convert over. Clearly, with even very little time spent, you already have some good insight into identifying problems that I haven't even thought about.

I think we need you in endourology. It's not too late to convert over. Clearly, with even very little time spent, you already have some good insight into identifying problems that I haven't even thought about.

There have already been 1,500 cases performed with the new 2.0 in the United States. It's only available in the United States currently. But yeah, community urologists, All types of urologists have used this already, as well as FANS has been used all throughout the United States by all types of urologists. You don't need to have special training for any of this.

There have already been 1,500 cases performed with the new 2.0 in the United States. It's only available in the United States currently. But yeah, community urologists, All types of urologists have used this already, as well as FANS has been used all throughout the United States by all types of urologists. You don't need to have special training for any of this.

There have already been 1,500 cases performed with the new 2.0 in the United States. It's only available in the United States currently. But yeah, community urologists, All types of urologists have used this already, as well as FANS has been used all throughout the United States by all types of urologists. You don't need to have special training for any of this.

I do think they recommend probably a couple of mentored cases with your territory manager from the company, just making sure you're using the best practices. But no, this does not require specialized training.

I do think they recommend probably a couple of mentored cases with your territory manager from the company, just making sure you're using the best practices. But no, this does not require specialized training.