ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Getting hot in here! Comparison of Holmium vs. thulium laser in an anatomic hydrogel kidney model.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal thulium fiber laser parameters for non-impacted stone lithotripsy: an in-vitro and ex-vivo evaluation.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Thermal injury and treatment efficiency during thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: insights from an in vivo porcine model.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- With great power comes great risk: High ureteral stricture rate after high-power, high-frequency Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in ureteroscopy.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Evaluating safe irrigation rates for Tm fiber laser lithotripsy to prevent thermal injury: an in vitro and numerical simulation.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Fabrication of acoustically and physically validated artificial stones to natural kidney stones under shock waves and laser lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Advancing laser lithotripsy insights - a synergistic perspective on holmium and thulium lasers.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As laser technology has advanced, high-power lasers have become increasingly common. The Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser has long been accepted as the standard for laser lithotripsy. The thulium fiber laser (TFL) has recently been established as a viable option. The aim of this study is to evaluate thermal dose and temperature for the Ho:YAG laser to the TFL at four different laser settings while varying energy, frequency, operator duty cycle (ODC). Utilizing high-fidelity, 3D-printed hydrogel models of a pelvicalyceal collecting system (PCS) with a synthetic BegoStone implanted in the renal pelvis, laser lithotripsy was performed with the Ho:YAG laser or TFL. At a standard power (40W) and irrigation (17.9 ml/min), we evaluated four different laser settings with ODC variations with different time-on intervals. Temperature was measured at two separate locations. In general, the TFL yielded greater cumulative thermal doses than the Ho:YAG laser. Thermal dose and temperature were typically greater at the stone when compared away from the stone. Regarding the TFL, there was no general trend if fragmentation or dusting settings yielded greater thermal doses or temperatures. The TFL generated greater temperatures and thermal doses in general than the Ho:YAG laser with Moses technology. Temperatures and thermal doses were greater closer to the laser fiber tip. It is inconclusive as to whether fragmentation or dusting settings elicit greater thermal loads for the TFL. Energy, frequency, ODC, and laser-on time significantly impact thermal loads during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, independent of power.
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.