ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Optimal thulium fiber laser parameters for non-impacted stone lithotripsy: an in-vitro and ex-vivo evaluation.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.Current urology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optimal parameter settings for thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy remain controversial, particularly regarding the balance between ablation efficiency and stone retropulsion in non-impacted stones. To address this, we evaluated TFL performance across a wide range of energy–frequency combinations (10–30 W) using an in-vitro BegoStone model to quantify mass loss, retropulsion distance, and fragment-size distribution. Findings were subsequently validated under clinically relevant conditions by fragmenting human struvite stones in an ex-vivo porcine kidney model at 30 W, assessing ablation efficiency, fiber repositioning time, and thermal safety under varying irrigation rates. In-vitro results indicated that pulse energies of 0.3–0.5 J combined with repetition rates of 20–100 Hz consistently produced the highest mass loss and lowest retropulsion, with > 90% of fragments measuring < 250 μm. Conversely, energies > 1 J or frequencies > 100 Hz caused marked increases in retropulsion and reduced efficiency. Ex-vivo validation confirmed that the 0.5 J × 60 Hz setting yielded the greatest ablation efficiency and significantly shortened fiber repositioning time. Furthermore, thermal monitoring revealed that at high-power settings (30 W), irrigation rates of ≥ 30 mL/min were required to maintain intra-renal temperatures below the safety threshold (37.1 °C), whereas low flow (10 mL/min) carried a high risk of thermal injury. In conclusion, TFL lithotripsy performs optimally at 0.3–0.5 J and 20–100 Hz for non-impacted stones, balancing energy deposition with laser-induced hydrodynamic forces. Additionally, adequate irrigation is critical during high-power lithotripsy to ensure thermal safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41784649What 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.