SURE Procedure
with the CVAC System

Limitations of Current Kidney Stone Treatments

Several kidney stone treatments exist, but no minimally invasive treatment option easily and reliably removes all dust and stone fragments. This often leads to continued pain, infection, stone re-growth, and the need for a second procedure.1-3

Ureteroscopy (URS) with Laser Lithotripsy

Laser lithotripsy is used to break up stones and fragments are then removed with a basket or left to be passed through the urinary tract.

Shockwave Lithotripsy (SWL)

Shock waves are used to break kidney stones into smaller fragments that can be passed through the urinary tract.

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL)

Surgical procedure that involves creating an incision in the patient’s back to directly access and remove large or complex kidney stones.

How the SURE Procedure Removes Kidney Stones

The SURE (Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation) Procedure introduces a paradigm shift in kidney stone care. Irrigation and vacuum aspiration are used to evacuate stone fragments during laser lithotripsy, enabling clinicians to achieve a stone-free outcome.

Why Choose the SURE Procedure?

Some of the benefits of the SURE Procedure include:

Better patient

In a landmark study, the SURE procedure demonstrated superior stone clearance compared to standard ureteroscopy.

Minimally invasive

Unlike PCNL, the SURE procedure does not require making any incisions.

No stone
left behind

Unlike SWL and standard URS, the SURE procedure allows physicians to clear dust and stone fragments, giving patients peace of mind.

The SURE (Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation) Procedure is performed exclusively with CVAC System and has a dedicated facility reimbursement code.

SURE Procedure Case Videos

CVAC Case Video:
40mm staghorn stone in lower pole

Courtesy of Dr. Jared Winoker

CVAC Case Video:
13mm stone in lower pole

Courtesy of Dr. Matthew Love


  1. Scales, Surgery 2014 May; 155(5):769-775
  2. Scales, JAMA Surg 2014; 149(7):648-653
  3. Chew, J Urol 2016; 195: 982-986