Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31656746›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2019

The laser of the future: reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic review.

Peter Kronenberg, Olivier Traxer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06266793 (Comparison of Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 Holmium Laser vs. Olympus Soltive Thulium Fiber Laser for Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 129 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
18.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06266793 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 Holmium Laser vs. Olympus Soltive Thulium Fiber Laser for Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaineHealthRan2024 to 2027Enrolled52ConditionsNephrolithiasis, Percutaneous NephrolithotomyArmsHolmium Laser, Thulium Laser
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

129 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 249 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter KronenbergHospital CUF Descobertas, Lisbon, Portugal.
Olivier TraxerHôpital Tenon, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI, Paris, France.
Hospital do Desterro · PTSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser has been the gold-standard for laser lithotripsy over the last 20 years. However, recent reports about a new prototype thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripter have revealed impressive levels of performance. We therefore decided to systematically review the reality and expectations for this new TFL technology. This review was registered in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42019128695). A PubMed search was performed for papers including specific terms relevant to this systematic review published between the years 2015 and 2019, including already accepted but not yet published papers. Additionally, the medical sections of ScienceDirect, Wiley, SpringerLink, Mary Ann Liebert publishers, and Google Scholar were also searched for peer-reviewed abstract presentations. All relevant studies and data identified in the bibliographic search were selected, categorized, and summarized. The authors adhered to PRISMA guidelines for this review. The TFL emits laser radiation at a wavelength of 1,940 nm, and has an optical penetration depth in water about four-times shorter than the Ho:YAG laser. This results in four-times lower stone ablation thresholds, as well as lower tissue ablation thresholds. As the TFL uses electronically-modulated laser diodes, it offers the most comprehensive and flexible range of laser parameters among laser lithotripters, with pulse frequencies up to 2,200 Hz, very low to very high pulse energies (0.005-6 J), short to very long-pulse durations (200 µs up to 12 ms), and a total power level up to 55 W. The stone ablation efficiency is up to four-times that of the Ho:YAG laser for similar laser parameters, with associated implications for speed and operating time. When using dusting settings, the TFL outperforms the Ho:YAG laser in dust quantity and quality, producing much finer particles. Retropulsion is also significantly reduced and sometimes even absent with the TFL. The TFL can use small laser fibers (as small as 50 µm core), with resulting advantages in irrigation, scope deflection, retropulsion reduction, and (in)direct effects on accessibility, visibility, efficiency, and surgical time, as well as offering future miniaturization possibilities. Similar to the Ho:YAG laser, the TFL can also be used for soft tissue applications such as prostate enucleation (ThuFLEP). The TFL machine itself is seven times smaller and eight times lighter than a high-power Ho:YAG laser system, and consumes nine times less energy. Maintenance is expected to be very low due to the durability of its components. The safety profile is also better in many aspects, i.e., for patients, instruments, and surgeons. The advantages of the TFL over the Ho:YAG laser are simply too extensive to be ignored. The TFL appears to be a real alternative to the Ho:YAG laser and become a true game-changer in laser lithotripsy. Due to its novelty, further studies are needed to broaden our understanding of the TFL, and comprehend the full implications and benefits of this new technology, as well its limitations.

Indexed as

Inventionslaserlithotripsysystematic reviewthuliumurinary calculi

Identifiers

PMID31656746
PMCPMC6790412
OpenAlexW2969381602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.