Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40756227›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India

Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?

Ruben Crew, Grant Sajdak, Ala'a Farkouh, Kai Wen Cheng, Sikai Song, Ruby Kuang, Tekisha Lindler, Akin S Amasyali, Ali Albaghli, Zhamshid Okhunov and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. What's inside.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ruben CrewDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Grant SajdakDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Ala'a FarkouhDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Kai Wen ChengDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Sikai SongDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Ruby KuangDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Tekisha LindlerDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Akin S AmasyaliDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Ali AlbaghliDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Zhamshid OkhunovDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.
D Duane BaldwinDepartment of Urology, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Removal of entombed ureteral stents can be technically challenging, particularly if the stent were to fragment during removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic suitability of the thulium fiber laser (TFL) and the holmium laser (HL) in the treatment of entombed stents. Methods: In this benchtop study, first, the time taken for each laser to transect the stent was recorded in 10 experiments/laser. Next, the force required to break the stent following 5 s of laser contact was measured in 15 randomized experiments/laser. Finally, seven experiments of simulated ureteroscopy on entombed stents were performed per laser. Lasers were operated at 0.8 J, 12 Hz with 270 µm fibers, and 6 Fr stents were utilized. Endpoints included time to release the stent, laser energy, and stent damage. Results: The stent transection time was shorter with the TFL compared to the HL (22.02 vs. 61.46 s; Conclusions: The TFL resulted in faster stent transection, reduced breakage force, and greater stent damage. Urologists should be cautious when releasing entombed stents using the TFL as the laser may significantly weaken the stent, increasing the risk of fracture during removal.

Identifiers

PMID40756227
PMCPMC12312839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.