World Journal of Urology

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 1583–1589 | Cite as

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

  • Francesco Sanguedolce
  • Emanuele Montanari
  • Mario Alvarez-Maestro
  • Nicola Macchione
  • Stephan Hruby
  • Athanasios Papatsoris
  • Panagiotis Kallidonis
  • Luca Villa
  • Patrick Honeck
  • Olivier Traxer
  • Francesco Greco
  • EAU Young Academic Urologists- Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group
Original Article



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).


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.


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.


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.


Ureteric stone Preventive retropulsion device New technology Endoscopic lithotripsy 


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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 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):513–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):1985–1988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 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) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Sanguedolce
    • 1
    • 10
  • Emanuele Montanari
    • 2
  • Mario Alvarez-Maestro
    • 3
  • Nicola Macchione
    • 2
  • Stephan Hruby
    • 4
  • Athanasios Papatsoris
    • 5
  • Panagiotis Kallidonis
    • 6
  • Luca Villa
    • 7
  • Patrick Honeck
    • 8
  • Olivier Traxer
    • 6
  • Francesco Greco
    • 9
  • EAU Young Academic Urologists- Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group
  1. 1.King’s College HospitalNHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.San Paolo HospitalUniversity of MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Infanta Sofia University HospitalMadridSpain
  4. 4.Paracelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  5. 5.Sismanoglio General HospitalAthensGreece
  6. 6.Patras University HospitalPatrasGreece
  7. 7.Tenon University HospitalParisFrance
  8. 8.Sindelfingen-Böblingen ClinicBoblingenGermany
  9. 9.Romolo HospitalRocca di NetoItaly
  10. 10.Northampton General HospitalNorthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations