ReviewUrolithiasis2025
Laser lithotripsy of a brushite crystalline aggregate stone model: fragment distribution vs. BegoStone and human stones.
Review in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fiber-to-stone distance and fragment size with holmium laser lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laser research is hampered by a lack of accurate stone models that replicate fragmentation during laser lithotripsy. We sought to assess the distribution of stone fragments from laser ablation of new brushite crystalline powder and brushite crystalline aggregate stone models and compare with human stones and BegoStone. Samples of 15:3 and 15:5 BegoStone, powder, and aggregate model stones were tested alongside human CHPD and COM stone samples. All samples were secured and hydrated before Ho: YAG laser energy was delivered (Lumenis P120H) using a 200-micron D/F/L fiber. Lithotripsy was performed by repeatedly translating the fiber automatically through a predetermined grid of points (MATLAB program) until > 50% of each sample was ablated. Fragments were separated by sieving. For each stone type, 70.2-96.9% of the mass of fragments consisted of particles smaller than 0.25 mm. The percentage by mass of fragments greater than 1 mm in trials with 0.8 J x 10 Hz settings was 0.5%, 0.0%, 1.1% and 5.1% for BegoStone 15:3, BegoStone 15:5, powder model, and aggregate model respectively, compared to 5.5% for CHPD and 16.2% for COM. Only the aggregate model, CHPD and COM samples produced fragments > 2 mm. The new aggregate model stone better replicates the fragment distribution of human stones after laser lithotripsy. The method of producing the aggregate model stone - incorporating crystal and chemical components found in urinary stones - holds promise for developing better stone models needed to address a range of important lithotripsy research questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40411543What 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.