ArticleScientific reports2026
Defining the safe operational window for holmium laser lithotripsy in impacted ureteral stones: an analysis of power, operator duty cycle, and irrigation flow.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iatrogenic thermal injury is a proposed mechanism for ureteral strictures that may occur following holmium laser lithotripsy for impacted stones. The safe operational parameters, including laser power, operator duty cycle (ODC), and irrigation flow rate, remain poorly defined. We utilized a high-fidelity, ex vivo 3D-printed silicone model to simulate the scenario of an impacted ureteral calculus. A full-factorial experimental design was employed to evaluate all combinations of laser power (10, 20, 30, and 40 W), irrigation flow rates (10 and 20 mL/min), and 50% ODC patterns (1 s/1 s, 3 s/3 s, and 5 s/5 s). The primary outcome was the cumulative thermal dose (CEM43) accumulated over a 90-s operational period. At power levels of 10 W and 20 W, nearly all combinations resulted in negligible CEM43 accumulation, measured at less than 0.06 min. A critical transition occurred at 30 W, where the combination of low flow (10 mL/min) and a prolonged laser-on time (5 s) resulted in CEM43 levels exceeding 120 min within the 90-s experiment, specifically reaching 336.18 min. At 40 W, the thermal risk was substantially elevated. Increasing the irrigation flow from 10 to 20 mL/min at 40 W, while maintaining a 3-s laser-on time, reduced CEM43 levels from a hazardous 309.80 min to 11.11 min. However, a 5-s laser-on time at 40 W consistently resulted in hazardous CEM43 levels, regardless of the flow rate. Thermal risk during laser lithotripsy is governed by the interplay of power, ODC, and flow. In this ex vivo model, 10 W was safe across all tested conditions. While 20 W is generally safe, prolonged activation at low flow should be avoided. Risk increases markedly above 30 W, where safety requires high flow and short activation bursts, conditions with a safety margin in theory, but not reproducibly so in practice. Moreover, because CEM43 is cumulative, the 90-s experimental window does not reflect total clinical activation time; longer activation may exceed injury thresholds even for settings that appeared safe in this model. Clinicians should therefore interpret these data with caution and use lower power setting.
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.