ArticleBJUI compass2025
Comparison of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG's in vitro ablation rates on synthetic and human stones.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed Thulium:Yag, Thulium Fiber, and Holmium:Yag Lasers in Mini-PCNL: A Three-Arm Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Visibly Transparent, Near-Infrared Absorbing Nanofluids Enable High-Efficiency and Safe Laser Lithotripsy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Comparison of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG's in vitro ablation rates on synthetic and human stones.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare in vitro the ablation rates of p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Ho:YAG against synthetic and human stones. Material and Methods: p-Tm:YAG, TFL and Low-Power (LP) Ho:YAG were compared using 270 μm core-diameter laser fibres (CDF); experiments with 200 μm(p-Tm:YAG) and 150 μm-CDF (TFL) were also included. A continuous laser emission was applied through a spiral trajectory for 20 seconds with the laser fibre tip in contact with synthetic hard (HSP) and soft stone phantoms (SSP) submerged in saline. "Dusting" settings for p-Tm:YAG(0,6 J-20 Hz-Flex Long Pulse), TFL(0,5 J-30 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(0,5 J-30 Hz-Long Pulse) and "Fragmentation" settings for p-Tm:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Captive), TFL(1 J-15 Hz-Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG(1 J-15 Hz-Long Pulse) were analysed. Then, experiments for human calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA) and cystine (CYS) stones were performed with single laser pulses at 0.6 J, 0.8 J and 1.0 J for p-Tm:YAG (Captive Fragmenting mode), TFL (Short Pulse) and Ho:YAG (Long Pulse). Synthetic and human stone samples were dried before three-dimensional scanning to measure ablation rates (ARs) and ablation volume per pulse (AVP). Results: For synthetic stones with 270 μm-CDF, the p-Tm:YAG and TFL presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP (95,1 ± 13,6vs67 ± 14 p = 0,02, respectively). Both p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than Ho:YAG in all settings. p-Tm:YAG-200 μm-CDF and TFL-150 μm-CDF presented similar ARs, except in Fragmentation against HSP(78,4 ± 8vs42,5 ± 2,6 mm Conclusion: p-Tm:YAG and TFL achieved higher ARs than LP-Ho:YAG against synthetic stones in vitro. For human stones, TFL achieved the highest AVP against COM while LP-Ho:YAG delivered higher AVPs against UA and CYS, for which TFL performed worst.
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.