ArticleUrolithiasis2019
Role of 'dusting and pop-dusting' using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥ 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking high-frequency lithotripsy: a review by EAU endourology group.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Stone dust in endourology: a systematic review of its definition, management, and clinical impact.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Correlation of Operative Time with Outcomes of Ureteroscopy and Stone Treatment: a Systematic Review of Literature.Current urology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Iatrogenic upper urinary tract injuries during ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a comprehensive review on incidence, mechanisms and preventative strategies.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Lasing strategy and its influence on 30-day operative outcomes in flexible ureteroscopy with FANS: inferences from a real-world prospective multicenter study by EAU-endourology and AUSET.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Temperature Increase During Flexible Ureteroscopic Approach with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy: How Much Should We Be Concerned?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- [Stones in the lower pole and their treatment].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Temperature Changes Between Holmium-YAG Laser and Thulium Fiber Laser in an In Vitro Setting.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Management of Kidney Stone Disease - Current Insights.Research and reports in urology · 2025Review
- Harnessing magnetism: evaluation of safety, tolerance and feasibility of magnetic kidney stone retrieval in vivo in porcine models.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Review
- Flexible ureteroscopy with novel flexible ureteral access sheath versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of 2-3 cm renal stones.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2024Article
- Pulsed thulium:YAG laser-ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? Results from a PEARLS analysis.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Holmium and Thulium Fiber Laser Safety in Endourological Practice: What Does the Clinician Need to Know?Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of large renal stones.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Optimal placement of flexible ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Temperature changes of renal calyx during high-power flexible ureteroscopic Moses holmium laser lithotripsy: a case analysis study.International urology and nephrology · 2023Article
- Ureteroscopy and lasertripsy with pop dusting using high power holmium laser for large urinary stones > 15 mm: 6.5-year prospective outcomes from a high-volume stone center.World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) has had recent advancements with the more powerful laser systems with the ability to 'dust' and 'pop-dust' the stone. We wanted to look at the outcomes of this method for large stones (≥ 15 mm) using our new 100 W holmium laser. Over a period of 16 months (January 2017-April 2018), 50 patients underwent URSL for minimum cumulative stone size of ≥ 15 mm. Data were collected prospectively on patient and stone demographics and outcomes of URSL. The laser setting used was a power of 0.3-0.6 J and a frequency of 20-50 Hz using a long-pulse setting with a 272-µm fiber. Fifty patients underwent 55 URSL procedures (5 bilateral procedures) using dusting and pop-dusting settings. The mean age was 58 years (range 2-88 years) with a male:female ratio of 35:15. The mean single and overall stone size were 10.3 mm (3-23 mm) and 21 mm (range 15-52 mm) with two-thirds of all patients (65%) having multiple stones. The stone location was in the kidney (n = 65, 78%), in the ureter (n = 19, 22%) and 5 patients had bilateral renal stones. With a mean operating time of 51 min, the initial and final SFR were 93 and 98%, respectively. A pre-operative stent, access sheath and a post-operative stent were present in 29 (53%), 34 (62%) and 51 (93%) procedures, respectively. Over a mean hospital stay of 0.6 days (74% day-case procedures), there was one Clavien IV complication related to urosepsis but without any other major or minor complications. Dusting and pop-dusting techniques achieve an excellent SFR with low risk of complications even for large stones. This might set a new benchmark for treating large stones, bilateral or multiple stones in a single setting, without the need for secondary procedures in most cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.