Observational studyInternational urology and nephrology2025
Thulium laser-based hemostasis during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective observational multicentric study.
Observational study in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is a controlled grade IV renal trauma and intraoperative bleeding is the most crucial complication. Contemporarily, pulsed mode thulium laser has been reported to confer adequate hemostasis. Therefore, the primary outcome of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of thulium laser-based hemostasis during PNL.
methodsThis was a prospective observational study including all patients, aged ≥ 18 years old with renal stone(s) ≥ 20 mm in the maximal dimension, candidate for PNL. Pregnant patients or those with uncorrected coagulopathy were excluded. All procedures were performed in the prone position and in case of a well-defined active blood spurter, and hemostasis was deployed by thulium laser. Hence, the patients were further classified into group (A): required thulium laser-based hemostasis and group (B): did not require hemostasis. A comparison was made between the groups regarding patients' history, PNL outcomes and complications.
resultsSeven hundred and thirty three patients underwent the procedure and abided by the follow-up regimen. Eighty-eight patients required hemostasis (12%) for tract spurters (51 patients, 58% of group A), renal unit spurters (18 patients, 20.5% of group A) and spurters of both (19 patients, 21.5% of group A). Twenty-two patients (3.1%) received blood transfusion during the study and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the outcomes and complications. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative value of the mean glomerular filtration rate.
conclusionThulium laser-based hemostasis is safe and effective for controlling the intraoperative bleeding during PNL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704925What 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.