ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Novel computed tomography characteristics of dust as well as tiny and small fragments in laser lithotripsy.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Slice thickness matters: CT-based evaluation of stone-free status with grade classification after RIRS.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of 1 mSv ultra-low-dose CT with automated volume analyzer software for detecting residual tiny fragments and dust particles after laser lithotripsy: an ex vivo Phantom study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
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
purposeTo evaluate the appearance of dust and stone fragments in the upper urinary tract after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) on computed tomography (CT) imaging.
methodsHuman renal stones were implanted into porcine kidneys to assess the characteristics of dust and small fragments on CT imaging. Stone samples were classified as small fragments (2.00-2.36 mm), tiny fragments (1.00-1.40 mm) or dust (≤ 250 μm). Each group was divided into multiple 0.25-g dry weight samples. Twenty-four samples were placed in the upper poles of porcine kidneys with a ureteroscope and characterized using CT. The reconstructed images were evaluated with volume analyzer software to determine stone volume, maximum and mean attenuation values, and standard deviation of the stone attenuation value.
resultsThe mean stone volume decreased with increasing stone size (p < 0.001). The mean attenuation value (depicted in Hounsfield units [HU]) significantly increased with increasing stone size: dust (309.9), tiny fragments (401.2), and small fragments (474.5). The maximum attenuation value (HU) of small fragments (1430.0) was significantly greater than those of tiny fragments (1126.3) and dust (1039.8). As the stone size decreased from the small fragment size to the dust size, the standard deviation of the stone attenuation value significantly decreased.
conclusionAs the stone size approaches the that of dust particles, the mean and maximum attenuation values decrease and become more homogeneous. CT and volume analyzer software can be used to distinguish dust from small fragments and assess small residual stones after RIRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40087186What 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.