Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34905141›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2022

In vitro fragmentation performance of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser compared to a Thulium fibre laser and standard Ho:YAG laser.

Lea Kraft, Ralf Petzold, Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola, Arkadiusz Miernik

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06721975 (Prospective Single-center Study Comparing Thulium Fiber Laser to Pulsed Thulium), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06721975 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Single-center Study Comparing Thulium Fiber Laser to Pulsed Thulium:YAG Laser in the Ureteroscopic Treatment of Nephrolithiasis

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2024 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsKidney Stones, NephrolithiasisArmsThulio pulsed Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG), Thulium Laser Fiber (TFL)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Lea KraftDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg-Medical Centre, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Ralf PetzoldDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg-Medical Centre, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Rodrigo Suarez-IbarrolaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg-Medical Centre, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Arkadiusz MiernikDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg-Medical Centre, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. arkadiusz.miernik@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5894-9647

Funding

Dornier MedTech Laser GmbH (DE) ZVK20200072801 (1040185101)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this work was to compare the fragmentation efficiency of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser (p-Tm:YAG) to that of a chopped Thulium fibre laser (TFL) and a pulsed Holmium solid-state laser (Ho:YAG). During the fragmentation process, we used a silicone mould to fixate the hemispherical stone models under water in a jar filled with room-temperature water. Each laser device registered the total energy applied to the stone model to determine fragmentation efficiency. Our study examined laser settings with single pulse energies ranging from 0.6 to 6 J and pulse frequencies ranging from 5 to 15 Hz. Similar laser settings were applied to explicitly compare the fragmentation efficiency of all three devices. We experimented with additional laser settings to see which of the three devices would perform best. The fragmentation performance of the three laser devices differed statistically significantly (p < 0.05). The average total energy required to fragment the stone model was 345.96 J for Ho:YAG, 372.43 J for p-Tm:YAG and 483.90 J for TFL. To fragment the stone models, both Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG needed similar total energy (p = 0.97). TFL's fragmentation efficiency is significantly lower than that of Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG. Furthermore, we found the novel p-Tm:YAG's fragmentation efficiency to closely resemble that of Ho:YAG. The fragmentation efficiency is thought to be influenced by the pulse duration. TFL's shortest possible pulse duration was considerably longer than that of Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG, resulting in Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG exhibiting better fragmenting efficiency.

Indexed as

CalculiLasers, Solid-StateLithotripsy, LaserHolmiumHumansThuliumHolmiumThuliumHolmium laserLaser lithotripsyPulsed Thulium laserThulium fibre laserUrinary stoneUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID34905141
PMCPMC8971152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.