ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
High-power holmium laser versus pulsed thulium laser for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Results of a randomized prospective study.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Re: Salvadó JA, Villena JM, Urrea F, et al. High-power holmium laser versus pulsed thulium laser for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Results of a randomized prospective study. Cent European J Urol. 2026; 79: 30-35.Central European journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current evidence indicates that the outcomes obtained with the holmium laser (Ho:YAG) and the thulium fiber laser (TFL) in the endoscopic treatment of upper urinary tract stones are at least equivalent. The recent introduction of the pulsed thulium laser (p-Tm:YAG) could result, due to its characteristics, in the ideal combination of its predecessors. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and outcomes between high-power Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG. Material and methods: This prospective randomized clinical study included patients with a single renal or ureteral stone, who underwent retrograde endoscopic surgery. Results: A total of 122 patients were recruited, of whom 66 (54%) received treatment with the p-Tm:YAG laser. The overall stone-free rate was 65.1% for p-Tm:YAG and 62.5% for Ho:YAG (p = 0.76). Specifically, for renal stones, the stone-free rates were 60.9% vs 48.4% (p = 0.28), respectively. The median energy used in the p-Tm:YAG group was 4.71 kJ compared to 5.31 kJ in the Ho:YAG group (p = 0.28). The postoperative requirement for a double-J catheter was higher in the Ho:YAG group (67.8% vs 50%; p = 0.04). The analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the energy required to treat 1 mm Conclusions: Intracorporeal lithotripsy with p-Tm:YAG shows non-inferior results in terms of stone-free rates compared to high-power Ho:YAG. There is a trend in favor of p-Tm:YAG regarding the total energy required and a lower need for a subsequent double-J catheter, which should be corroborated by further studies in this field of urology.
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.