Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32479257›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of urology2020

Thulium fiber laser: The new kid on the block.

Matthew Schembri, Jayanta Sahu, Omar Aboumarzouk, Amelia Pietropaolo, Bhaskar K Somani

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Turkish journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew SchembriUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7915-2127
Jayanta SahuZepler Institute for Photonics and Nanoelectrics, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7915-2127
Omar AboumarzoukDepartment of Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7961-7614
Amelia PietropaoloUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-3108
Bhaskar K SomaniUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBHamad General Hospital · QAUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLaser technology in urology is currently used for both stone lithotripsy and prostate enucleation. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is a novel laser, with initial studies showing potential benefits over other lasers both in terms of its effectiveness and safety profile. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn the first part of this review, a descriptive analysis of the theoretical concepts behind TFL was performed. This part focused on the physics and laser parameters as applied to the clinical practice. These were interpreted in the context of other lasers, namely, the Holmium:YAG laser to highlight the theoretical advantages as well as potential pitfalls offered by the TFL. In the second part of the review, a narrative synthesis of in-vitro studies regarding TFL and its modifications is performed assessing stone-related parameters, namely, ablation rate, operative time retropulsion, and safety.

resultsTFL achieved high ablation rates in most studies and performed better than Holmium:YAG laser across a range of different settings and ablation modes when the two lasers were compared. Moreover, its ability to use low pulse energy ensures minimal stone retropulsion with the retropulsion threshold estimated to be 2-4 times higher than that of Holmium:YAG laser. From a safety viewpoint, TFL poses no additional risks than other lasers, although it does potentially lead to slightly higher temperatures in the surrounding tissues during lithotripsy.

conclusionThe unique properties of TFL have made it an attractive alternative to conventional laser techniques currently used in urology. Clinical studies are required before its application can become more widespread.

Identifiers

PMID32479257
PMCPMC7731960
OpenAlexW3030909342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.