Be ready for them all
No two patients present the same anatomical challenges or health conditions. No two stones are alike. Your focus is to provide treatment options that help your patients become stone-free as quickly and safely as possible. Boston Scientific offers you an extensive portfolio of medical devices designed to treat your patients.
A simplified route to stone free results?
Over 2,200 urologists rely on Boston Scientific technologies for stone treatment procedures1. Some examples out of the stone portfolio include:
MOSES™ 2.0 Technology*
Holmium laser continues to be a highly versatile technology for lithotripsy with rigorous scientific evidence.2
MOSESTM 2.0 Technology demonstrated nearly 20% reduction in procedure time, 38% improvement in fragmentation efficiency and 50% reduction in stone retropulsion compared to regular holmium lasers.3
*The MOSES ™ 2.0 Technology is inclusive of all MOSES ™ 1.0 setting and features.
Tria™ Ureteral Stent
The Tria stent may help control the accumulation of both magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) Salt.6,7
What do your peers say about Boston Scientific medical devices?
Relevant and accessible education
Director,Minimally Invasive Urologic Surgery
Brown University School of Medicine
We are committed to making medical education more relevant, more comprehensive, and more accessible.
Our EDUCARE platform is regularly updated with content like this video about the Algorithm for Use of a Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope.
Addressing cost pressures
GET UPDATES
FOLLOW US ON LINKEDIN
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
References:
1. Data on file with Boston Scientific
2.Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, et al. Use of the Moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes: A preclinical study. J Endourol. 2017 Jun;31(6):598-604.
3.Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, FahmyN, et al. Double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial comparing regular and Mosesmodes of holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol.2020 May;34(5):624-8.
4.Bruce AW, Sira SS, Clark AF, et al. The problem of catheter encrustation. Can Med Assoc J. 1974 Aug 3;111(3):238-41.
5.Vanderbrink BA, Rastinehad AR, Ost MC, et al. Encrusted urinary stents: evaluation and endourologic management. J Endourol. 2008 May;22(5):905-12.
6. Data on file with Boston Scientific. Bench test results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance.
7. Study methodology: Testing was performed by an independent third-party using the in-vitro BEST™ method to evaluate salt adhesion of the ureteral stents. A total of 30 samples from each ureteral stent family were tested in both a sterile Artificial Urine Model and a Bacterial Infection Model (n=15 in each model) for 2 weeks. Proteus mirabilis was used as the microbial challenge in the Bacterial Infection Model due to its known urease production and involvement in struvite formation.
8. Bechis SK, et al. In vitro head-to-head comparison of the durability, versatility and efficacy of the NGage and novel Dakota stone retrieval baskets. Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Dec;6(6):1144-1149.