ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
A prospective evaluation of high- and low-power holmium laser settings for transurethral lithotripsy in the management of adults with large bladder calculi.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- High-power versus low-power laser settings during endoscopic stone disease management: a systematic review from the EAU endourology section.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate plus thulium fiber laser therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia combined with bladder stones.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- High-power Holmium:Yag lithotripsy in bladder urolithiasis: Is it safe and effective? A combined clinical and experimental study.Arab journal of 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo prospectively investigate the efficacy and safety of high-power (100 W) vs low-power (20 W) laser settings for transurethral laser lithotripsy in the management large vesical calculi (> 4 cm).
methodsAll patients with vesical calculi > 4 cm in the maximum dimension and scheduled for transurethral holmium laser lithotripsy were invited to participate in the study. Every alternate patient was treated with either the low- or high-power laser settings. We used a continuous irrigation resectoscope with laser bridge or a laser working element (Karl Storz) for laser lithotripsy of bladder stones. We compared the operative time, intra-operative/post-operative complications (up to 1 year), and stone-free rates between the treatment groups using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 software. Comparisons between treatment groups for continuous variables were assessed using the Welch test, while categorical variables were compared with either the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsTwenty patients with ten in each cohort were recruited. Preoperative data and mean bladder stone size were comparable in both groups. The duration of surgery was significantly reduced from 70.80 ± 25.28 min in low-power cohort to 40.90 ± 15.01 min in the high-power group (p = 0.005). There were no significant intra-operative complications in either group. All patients were stone-free following the procedure.
conclusionHigh-power laser setting of up to 100 W results in a significant reduction in duration of surgery without any increase in the complication rate for treatment of large bladder stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33624144What 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.