ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Characterizing stone ablation with the thulium fiber laser: a single-pulse comparison of different pulse durations.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. 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.
- Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Comparison of TFL and high-power Ho: YAG lasers with multiple pulse modulations: an in vitro study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Optimal thulium fiber laser parameters for non-impacted stone lithotripsy: an in-vitro and ex-vivo evaluation.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- The impact of normalized energy utilization on clinical outcomes and complications in endourological stone surgery: a prospective study.Urolithiasis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stone ablation using the thulium fiber laser (TFL) at different pulse duration/peak power or laser fiber-to-stone distances requires further research to understand effective and safe settings. In this study we characterized the vapor bubble anatomy and stone crater morphology at various settings and standoff distances. Optical profiles of 1 J short pulse (SP), 1 J long pulse (LP), 3 J SP, and 2.4 J LP of a TFL system (Fiberdust, Quanta) were assessed. We used high-speed imaging and segmentation to quantify the vapor bubble. Using Begostones, stone craters from a single pulse at each setting were compared at 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm standoff distances. The temporal optical profile of TFL is rectangular in shape with a peak power of ~ 180W (LP) and ~ 470W (SP). Increasing the pulse energy did not increase the peak power. LP generated a channel-like bubble while SP formed multiple generations of a spherical bubble. Ablation volume with SP was greater than LP for all distances (p < 0.001) with up to 350% increased crater volume at contact. Ablation reduced as distance increased with both modes. There was no ablation at > 1 mm distance with LP. For SP, increasing the pulse energy had minimal impact on crater depth. The SP creates a bubble geometry that tends to collapse more quickly in comparison to LP. Peak power of TFL is a function of pulse duration, not pulse energy. LP results in weak ablation. When using SP, increasing the pulse energy increased ablation volume by increasing crater area rather than depth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40025336What 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.