ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Steady-state versus burst lasing techniques for thulium fiber laser.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of transurethral thulium laser cauterization in male patients with urethral hemangioma: a single-center retrospective case series.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Optimal thulium fiber laser parameters for non-impacted stone lithotripsy: an in-vitro and ex-vivo evaluation.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- High-frequency in laser lithotripsy: do we truly know what it means?World journal of urology · 2025Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the stone ablation rate and direct thermal damage from thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy using continuous (C) and burst (B) lasing techniques on an in vitro ureteral model.
methodsThe TFL Drive (Coloplast, Humlebaek, Denmark) was used in an in vitro saline-submerged ureteral model. Ten participants, including five junior and five experienced urologists, conducted the experimental setup with 7 different settings comparing two lasing techniques: steady-state lasing (0.5 J/10 Hz = 5W for 300 s and 0.5 J/20 Hz = 10W for 150 s) and burst, intermittent 5 s on/off lasing (0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.5 J/30 Hz, 0.5 J/60 Hz, 0.1 J/200 Hz, and 0.05 J/400 Hz) with a target cumulative energy of 1500 J using cubic 125 mm
resultsThe were no significant differences in stone ablation mass neither between C and B lasing techniques, nor between expertise levels. At C lasing technique had only mild ureteral lesions with no significant differences between expertise levels (p: 0.97) or laser settings (p: 0.71). At B lasing technique, different types of thermal lesions were found with no expertise (p: 0.11) or setting (p: 0.83) differences. However, B laser setting had higher grade direct thermal lesions than C (p: 0.048).
conclusionRegarding efficacy, C and B lasing techniques achieve comparable stone ablation rates. Safety-wise, B lasing mode showed higher grade of direct thermal lesions. These results should be further investigated to verify which of the lasing mode is the safest in vivo. Until then and unless proven otherwise, a C mode with low frequency should be recommended to avoid ureteral wall lesions.
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.