ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Equal-power Ho:YAG laser energy-frequency modulation during RIRS for renal pelvis stones: 0.3 J × 50 Hz vs. 1.5 J × 10 Hz.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare outcomes of two holmium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Ho:YAG) laser energy–frequency protocols delivered under equal average power during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal pelvis stones. We retrospectively reviewed 250 adults undergoing unilateral RIRS for a single renal pelvis stone (10–20 mm) between January 2022 and November 2025. Patients were treated with Ho:YAG lithotripsy at the same average power (~ 15 W) using either 0.3 J × 50 Hz (n = 120) or 1.5 J × 10 Hz (n = 130). All cases were performed with a digital flexible ureterorenoscope and a suction-enabled ureteral access sheath (FANS). The primary outcome was stone-free status at 4–6 weeks, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments (≤ 2 mm). Secondary outcomes were laser activation time, complications, and reintervention. Subgroup analyses were performed by stone size and stone density (Hounsfield units, HU). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Stone-free rate was higher with 0.3 J × 50 Hz than with 1.5 J × 10 Hz (84.2% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.048), and reintervention was lower (7.5% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.018). Laser activation time was slightly longer in the 0.3 J × 50 Hz group (median 30 vs. 29 min, p = 0.038). In both protocols, stones > 15 mm and HU ≥ 1200 were associated with lower stone-free rates and longer activation times. Under equal average power, 0.3 J × 50 Hz achieved higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions than 1.5 J × 10 Hz for renal pelvis stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41762221What 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.