ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Thulium fiber vs. holmium: YAG lasers in urology: insights from the FDA MAUDE database.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare adverse events (AEs) associated with Thulium Fiber Lasers (TFLs) and Holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) lasers reported in the FDA MAUDE database, and to examine changes in TFL-related AEs following the FDA's 2021 Class II recall.
methodsThe FDA MAUDE database was searched for events between 2018 and 2024 using "LUMENIS MOSES," "LUMENIS VERSAPULSE," "SOLTIVE," and "TFL + {YEAR}." Events were classified as device, patient, staff or environmental, and graded using the Gupta system (Levels I-IV). Exclusions included non-urologic procedures, insufficient detail, or duplicates. Subgroup analyses considered prostate vs. non-prostate, TFL pre- vs. post-recall, and Ho: YAG by pulse modulation (MOSES vs. standard). Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical data, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for Gupta comparisons.
results954 events were included (467 TFL, 487 Ho: YAG). Console malfunctions were more common with Ho: YAG (44.4%, p < 0.0001), while fiber breaks more with TFLs (57%, p < 0.0001). Patient-involving AEs occurred more with Ho: YAG (35.3%) compared to TFLs (13.5%, p < 0.0001). Most events were Level I: 83.9% TFL vs. 59.3% Ho: YAG (p < 0.0001). Level II events were higher with Ho: YAG (39.8%), and Level III with TFLs (2.1%, p = 0.0436); one Level IV event occurred (Ho: YAG group). Post FDA recall, TFL-related Level II and III events decreased significantly. Prostate vs. non-prostate stratification showed no differences. MOSES use in Ho: YAG had fewer fiber issues, but more Level II events compared to standard holmium.
conclusionLasers in urology appear safe, with most AEs being free of patient or staff harm and classified as minor. Post-recall improvements in TFL safety profiles suggest effective corrective action.
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.