ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Old versus new tools to reduce retropulsion of proximal ureteral stones: virtual basket versus Magneto technology pulse modulation, which is the most effective?
Article in World journal of urology, 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.
- An in-vitro comparative study of magneto holmium: YAG and fiber dust thulium fiber lasers-primary effects on ablation, retropulsion, fragmentation, and temperature changes using phantom urologic stones.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- RIRS outcomes of conventional and pulse-modulated Ho:YAG lasers versus thulium fiber laser: a multinomial matching analysis.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- The Effect of Conventional Ho:YAG, Magneto Ho:YAG and Thulium Fiber Laser on Soft Tissue: An Ex Vivo Comparative Study in Porcine Kidney.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess differences in dusting and antiretropulsion efficacy between Virtual Basket and Magneto technology pulse modulation in lithotripsy of proximal ureteral stones with the Holmium: YAG laser. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with a proximal ureteral stone underwent lithotripsy using the Cyber Ho laser generator (Quanta System®). To reduce stone retropulsion and improve dusting efficacy, Virtual Basket (Group A) versus Magneto technology (Group B) was applied. In all cases energy and frequency settings were set at 0.6 J and 10 Hz respectively. Intraoperative parameters and stone-free rate (SFR) were assessed.
results80 patients were treated (40 in each group). Preoperative features were comparable. Mean stone size was 7.3 mm in Group A and 7.9 mm in Group B (p = 0.25). In Group A mean operative time was 29.1 min, lasing time 5.5 min, delivered energy 1.9 KJ and retropulsion occurred in 6 (15.0%) cases. In Group B mean operative time was 25.7 min (p = 0.07), lasing time 3.6 min (p = 0.05), delivered energy 1.2 KJ (p = 0.06) and retropulsion occurred in 2 (5.0%) cases (p = 0.04). SFR was 92.5% vs. 97.5% (p = 0.06). Intraoperative ureteral lesions were observed in 8 vs. 4 cases (p = 0.05) and no postoperative ureteral strictures occurred.
conclusionsThe “new” Magneto technology, born as an implementation of the Holmium: YAG Cyber Ho laser generator, showed significant advantages in terms of dusting efficacy and antiretropulsion effect compared to the “old” Virtual Basket pulse modulation in the endoscopic treatment of proximal ureteral stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40974431What 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.