Dr. Roger Sur

If we roll back the clock to the 70s and beyond, it was open surgery was phenomenal. you know, state of the art and really was the standard of care. But then somewhere in the 70s, three major players came in was the introduction of percutaneous stone surgery going through the back.

And then the introduction of shockwave lithotripsy that really trying to change things because now we no longer had to

And then the introduction of shockwave lithotripsy that really trying to change things because now we no longer had to

And then the introduction of shockwave lithotripsy that really trying to change things because now we no longer had to

cut people or put things in people we just broke them up from the outside using acoustic energy and then came ureteroscopy first there were rigid devices and then we were able to introduce flexible devices and then flexible steerable devices so there's this constant migration and iteration of our technology and i would say for the past since that time there's those are the three players uh that are available to uh patients and depending on your

cut people or put things in people we just broke them up from the outside using acoustic energy and then came ureteroscopy first there were rigid devices and then we were able to introduce flexible devices and then flexible steerable devices so there's this constant migration and iteration of our technology and i would say for the past since that time there's those are the three players uh that are available to uh patients and depending on your

cut people or put things in people we just broke them up from the outside using acoustic energy and then came ureteroscopy first there were rigid devices and then we were able to introduce flexible devices and then flexible steerable devices so there's this constant migration and iteration of our technology and i would say for the past since that time there's those are the three players uh that are available to uh patients and depending on your

desire for how much morbidity you're willing to accept as well as you know what type of stone free rates you're trying to achieve you choose one of the three accepting the pros and cons of each of the technologies

desire for how much morbidity you're willing to accept as well as you know what type of stone free rates you're trying to achieve you choose one of the three accepting the pros and cons of each of the technologies

desire for how much morbidity you're willing to accept as well as you know what type of stone free rates you're trying to achieve you choose one of the three accepting the pros and cons of each of the technologies

So, yeah, great question. I think what we've seen more recently is that ureteroscopy has really become a dominant player.

So, yeah, great question. I think what we've seen more recently is that ureteroscopy has really become a dominant player.

So, yeah, great question. I think what we've seen more recently is that ureteroscopy has really become a dominant player.

It was unclear, I would say, 20 years ago when ureteroscopy was still kind of new and with lasers being used because shockwave was still very commonly used and most people didn't want to subject themselves to a scope procedure when you could just have an acoustic energy being used in the outside. Why would you want to have a scope in a stent place?

It was unclear, I would say, 20 years ago when ureteroscopy was still kind of new and with lasers being used because shockwave was still very commonly used and most people didn't want to subject themselves to a scope procedure when you could just have an acoustic energy being used in the outside. Why would you want to have a scope in a stent place?

It was unclear, I would say, 20 years ago when ureteroscopy was still kind of new and with lasers being used because shockwave was still very commonly used and most people didn't want to subject themselves to a scope procedure when you could just have an acoustic energy being used in the outside. Why would you want to have a scope in a stent place?

But what we've seen with the data is that ureteroscopy outcomes appear to be superior to shockwave lithotripsy. And that's somewhat of a broad statement across the board. I'm sure there's some situations where shockwave has its place. But broadly speaking, I think most people would admit that ureteroscopy is a better procedure out there.

But what we've seen with the data is that ureteroscopy outcomes appear to be superior to shockwave lithotripsy. And that's somewhat of a broad statement across the board. I'm sure there's some situations where shockwave has its place. But broadly speaking, I think most people would admit that ureteroscopy is a better procedure out there.

But what we've seen with the data is that ureteroscopy outcomes appear to be superior to shockwave lithotripsy. And that's somewhat of a broad statement across the board. I'm sure there's some situations where shockwave has its place. But broadly speaking, I think most people would admit that ureteroscopy is a better procedure out there.

And that speaks to also the studies showing the use of ureteroscopy has grown increasingly. And simultaneously, the use of shockwave lithotripsy lithotripsy has declined. And whereas percutaneous surgery, it makes up more of a minority of the surgeries. It's still there available, but it's still kind of a background player reserved for larger stones.