ArticleLasers in medical science2020
What is the optimum lithotripsy method for high density stones during mini-PNL? Laser, ballistic or combination of both.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Pneumatic versus Laser Lithotripsy for Upper Tract Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urologia internationalis · 2025Pooled it
- Holmium laser lithotripsy and its effects on postoperative complications in urolithiasis.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparison of lithotripsy methods during mini-PNL: is there a role for ballistic lithotripsy in the era of high-power lasers.BMC urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the primary treatment option for renal stones > 20 mm in diameter. Mini-PNL gained popularity with its minimally invasive nature. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of ballistic and laser lithotripsy with the combined use of both techniques. Data of 312 patients underwent mini-PNL for renal stones with Hounsfield Unit > 1000 was investigated retrospectively. We identified 104 patients underwent combined ballistic and laser lithotripsy. Propensity score technique was used to create the laser and ballistic lithotripsy groups. Groups were matched on stone size, stone density, and Guy's stone score. Primary end point of the study was to compare the stone free rate (SFR), complication rates, and duration of surgery. Mean age of the population was 49.4 ± 6.1, stone size was 24.6 ± 6.3 mm, and stone density was 1215 ± 89 HU. The groups were similar for age, stone size, stone density, and Guy's stone score. The SFR and the complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (p = 0.67). The duration of the surgery was shorter in the combined group (46.1 ± 6.3 min) compared to the laser lithotripsy (54.5 ± 6.6 min) and ballistic lithotripsy (57.2 ± 6.9 min) groups. Both laser and ballistic lithotripsy are effective methods for stone fragmentation during mini-PNL. Combined use of both methods has the potential to improve the fragmentation rates and diminish the operative times in case of high density stones.
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.