ArticleUrolithiasis2025
In vitro comparative analysis of ablation volume and energy requirements for 1 mm³ stone ablation using ho: YAG, p-Tm: YAG, and TFL lasers.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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.
- Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Flexible ureterorenoscopy and lithotripsy with pulsed thulium: YAG laser: a multicenter retrospective study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treating 1-2 cm Single Stones in Solitary Kidney: Outcomes and Renal Function Impact.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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to quantify the ablation volume per laser pulse (AVP, µm³) and the energy required to ablate 1 mm³ of stone material (RE, J/mm³) using the RevoLix HTL pulsed Thulium: YAG (p-Tm: YAG) laser (OmniGuide©, USA). Results were compared with those obtained using a Holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser (MH1, Rocamed©, Monaco) and a Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) system (IPG©, Russia). Experiments were conducted on pure human urinary stones composed of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid (UA), and cystine (CYS). Each sample was submerged in saline and lasered in contact mode with a 272-µm fiber. The p-Tm: YAG and TFL lasers were tested at 0.5, 0.8, and 1 J, while the Ho: YAG was evaluated at 0.6, 0.8, and 1 J, all using the shortest pulse setting available. After treatment, stone craters were imaged and segmented using 3D Slicer software to compute AVP, from which RE values were derived. All measurements were based on three repetitions per condition. Across multiple energy settings, Ho: YAG showed superior ablation performance in CYS and UA stones, particularly at 0.6 and 1 J, while no significant differences were noted among lasers for COM stones. TFL outperformed p-Tm: YAG in ablating UA stones at both 0.5 and 1 J. Regarding energy efficiency, Ho: YAG consumed less energy than TFL for CYS (at 0.8 and 1 J) and UA stones (all energies), and less than p-Tm: YAG for CYS (0.5 J) and UA (1 J). Conversely, both TFL and p-Tm: YAG were more efficient than Ho: YAG for COM stones. TFL also required significantly less energy than p-Tm: YAG at 0.5 J for COM and at 0.8 and 1 J for CYS stones. Our findings suggest that TFL and p-Tm: YAG may be less effective than Ho: YAG for cystine and uric acid stones. Stone composition should be carefully considered when selecting the laser source, as it may impact procedural efficiency and outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41081915What 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.