ReviewEuropean journal of medical research2025
Expanding urolithiasis treatment: comparison of super pulsed thulium laser and holmium:YAG laser for ureteral stone management.
Review in European journal of medical research, 2025. 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.
- Optimization of Thulium Fiber Laser Lithotripsy Efficacy Based on Multidimensional Parameter Combination Strategies.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Thulium fiber laser versus holmium:YAG laser for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A Comparative Evaluation of Holmium:YAG and Thulium Fiber Lasers in Urinary Stone Treatment.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this review is to compare the effectiveness of SuperPulsed thulium fiber laser (SP TFL) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in lithotripsy, with the aim of evaluating the differences between the two in key indicators, such as lithotripsy efficiency and safety, and providing reference for clinical selection of better lithotripsy methods.
methodsBy searching multiple authoritative medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases) and including the results of relevant clinical studies and laboratory studies, the indexes involving SP TFL and Ho:YAG lasers in the included literature were analyzed.
resultsWe found a total of 24 relevant pieces of literature. The laser parameters, such as ablation efficiency, ablation speed, operative time, dust quality, retropulsion, visibility, temperature safety, and stone-free rate, were compared between laboratory studies and clinical outcomes. Preclinical studies have shown that SP TFL has a higher rate of stone ablation, a weaker retropulsion and a lower risk of fiber breakage. The results of clinical studies showed that the two methods were comparable in the ablation rate, laser time and operative time, stone-free rate and complication. SP TFL offered better endoscopic view quality and less retropulsion.
conclusionsWhile the Ho:YAG laser remains the primary choice for endoscopic laser lithotripsy, the emergence of SP TFL offers a promising new option for the minimally invasive treatment of urinary calculi. Parameter range, retropulsion effect, laser fiber adaptability, and overall system performance demand comprehensive attention. SP TFL has a relatively short clinical application history, and further research is necessary to fully explore its long-term advantages, clinical significance, and possible limitations.
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.