ArticleUrolithiasis2023
Femtosecond laser lithotripsy: a novel alternative for kidney stone treatment? Evaluating the safety and effectiveness in an ex vivo study.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Holmium (Ho:YAG) laser is presently the most extensively employed in laser lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones. Despite its adoption as the gold standard for laser lithotripsy, Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy poses three significant challenges, namely thermal effect, insufficient stone fragmentation, and stone displacement, which have garnered increased attention from urologic surgeons. Nowadays, the femtosecond laser is regarded as a potential alternative to the Ho:YAG laser due to its capacity to ablate diverse materials with minimal thermal effect. In our ex vivo investigation, we assessed the dimensions of ablation pits, the efficacy of ablation, the degree of stone fragmentation, the alterations in water temperature surrounding stones, and the degree of tissue damage associated with Femtosecond laser lithotripsy utilizing adjustable power settings (1-50 W). Our findings indicate that the ablation pits generated by the Femtosecond laser exhibited uniform geometries, and the effectiveness of ablation and fragmentation for Femtosecond laser lithotripsy were significantly and positively correlated with laser power. When the laser power remained constant, the Femtosecond laser with higher pulse energy demonstrated superior efficiency in stone ablation, but inferior performance in stone fragmentation. Conversely, the Femtosecond laser with higher pulse frequency exhibited the opposite behavior. Furthermore, the thermal effect increased proportionally with laser power, leading to a tentative recommendation of 10W laser power for future investigations. Our in vitro findings suggest that the Femtosecond laser holds promise as a safe and effective alternative to holmium lasers.
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.