ArticleArab journal of urology2024
Assessment of stone ablation rate using the Moses technology modes with different energy and pulse settings: An experimental study.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Power is not performance: Analysis of laser-use metrics from a randomised clinical trial comparing low- and high-power ureteroscopic lithotripsy.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Fiber-to-stone distance and fragment size with holmium laser lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare lithotripsy ablation rate with the Moses modes versus conventional pulse modes when using the Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser. Methods: The Lumenis® Pulse P120H Holmium Laser System and a 365 μm Moses D/F/L fiber were used to assess stone ablation rate in conventional Short and Long Pulse as well as Moses Contact and Distance at 10 W (0.5Jx20Hz and 2Jx5Hz) and 60 W (1Jx60Hz and 2Jx30Hz). Hard and soft phantom stones were formed, and all tests were conducted in a custom experimental configuration installed in a saline-filled bath. The laser was delivered up to 3 kJ of total energy. The fragmentation pattern was assessed via photographs in each cohort. Results: The time to reach the target energy was 5 min and 50 s in all 10 W and 60 W trials, respectively. In both stone types, ablation was more effective when high-power, high-energy and Moses Distance was utilized. In soft stones, the lowest ablation rate was detected in the Long Pulse modality in all power, energy and frequency settings. Overall, when dusting settings (high-frequency, low-energy) were used, a deeper single cavitation was observed rather than small cavitations. Conclusions: The most effective pulse modality as evaluated via stone ablation rate depends on the stone hardness as well as energy and frequency settings. In both hard and soft stones, ablation is more effective when 60 W (2Jx30Hz) power settings and Moses Distance are used. Tailored laser settings in terms of energy and frequency could be set for each case scenario.
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.