ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
In vitro ablation rates of Ho:YAG, p-Tm:YAG and TFL lasers.
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 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.
- 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
- RIRS outcomes of conventional and pulse-modulated Ho:YAG lasers versus thulium fiber laser: a multinomial matching analysis.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Efficacy of thulium fiber laser litothripsy on large renal stones (> 1000 mm³) according to Hounsfield units: a prospective single-center study.BMC urology · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the ablation rates of three laser systems—Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG), Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL), and Pulsed Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG)—for renal stone lithotripsy using a standardized robotic setup. MATERIALS AND
methodsA robotic arm enabled consistent laser application on stone phantoms simulating calcium oxalate monohydrate (hard) and uric acid (soft) stones. Ablation efficiency (mm³/J) was assessed across different laser settings (0.2 J–50 Hz, 0.5 J–20 Hz, and 1.0 J–10 Hz) and fiber diameters (200 and 272 μm). Ablated volumes were quantified via micro-CT and 3D segmentation using 3DSlicer. Statistical analysis evaluated differences in performance.
resultsTFL demonstrated the highest ablation rates for both hard and soft stones, significantly outperforming Ho:YAG in multiple settings. For hard stones, TFL exhibited greater ablation efficiency than Ho:YAG, particularly at 0.5 J–20 Hz and 1.0 J–10 Hz. The p-Tm:YAG laser also outperformed Ho:YAG at 0.5 J–20 Hz. For soft stones, the difference between TFL and Tm:YAG was statistically significant at lower energy settings (0.20 J–50 Hz and 0.5 J–20 Hz). Compared to Ho:YAG, TFL showed significantly higher ablation rates across all tested settings (p < 0.05). The p-Tm:YAG laser showed intermediate performance, with higher efficiency than Ho:YAG but slightly lower than TFL. Fiber diameter influenced ablation, with 272 μm fibers yielding greater efficiency at lower energy settings (p < 0.05 at 0.20 J − 50 Hz and 0.5 J − 20 Hz for both stone types); this comparison was limited to p-Tm:YAG, as data for the other lasers are already available in the literature.
conclusionTFL achieved the highest in vitro ablation efficiency. However, p-Tm:YAG represents a promising compromise, offering improved performance over Ho:YAG and a balanced profile between fragmentation and dusting capabilities.
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.