ArticleCurrent urology2025
Dusting versus fragmentation for large proximal ureteral stones during flexible ureteroscopy: A prospective randomized study.
Article in Current 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.
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
Background: Recent advances in endoscopic technology have empowered urologists to treat most types of stones within the urinary tract effectively. Available treatments for ureteral stones using a laser lithotripter include fragmentation, the active removal of fragments with a basket, and dusting. To date, only a few prospective randomized studies have endorsed the use of stone dusting, fragmentation, and active removal for ureteric stones. Materials and methods: This randomized, prospective, comparative study was conducted in the Urology Department. Sixty patients with proximal ureteral stones from July 2019 to July 2020 were included and randomly divided into 2 groups using a random number generator program (version 2, 2015). In Group 1, the stones were fragmented into dust (n = 30), and in Group 2, lithotripsy produced extractable fragments (n = 30). Results: In this study, the Ho:YAG laser was used to dust stones at low energy and high frequency (0.4-0.6 J and 20-30 Hz). Using the Ho:YAG laser set to high energy and low frequency (1.5-2 J and 8-10 Hz), stone fragmentation was achieved. The mean stone size was 1.63 cm in Group 1 and 1.69 cm in Group 2. The stone-free rates for the dusting and fragmentation groups were 96.6% and 86.6%, respectively. Meanwhile, the mean operative time was 87.6 ± 33.6 minutes in the dusting group and 80.4 ± 28.8 minutes in the fragmentation group. There were no postoperative complications with the dusting technique, compared with a 13.3% complication rate with the fragmentation technique. Conclusions: For proximal ureteral stones, the stone-free rates between the dusting and fragmentation procedures were comparable. Both techniques proved to be effective.
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.