ArticleUrolithiasis2026
RIRS outcomes of conventional and pulse-modulated Ho:YAG lasers versus thulium fiber laser: a multinomial matching analysis.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the impact of conventional Ho:YAG, pulse-modulated Ho:YAG, and thulium fiber laser (TFL) on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones using a propensity score–matched design. We retrospectively reviewed 1,039 adults who underwent RIRS for renal stones between 1 January 2022 and 1 June 2025 at a center; 755 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized by laser type: Group 1, conventional 30 W Ho:YAG; Group 2, pulse-modulated 65 W Ho:YAG; Group 3, 60 W TFL. Demographic variables, stone characteristics, laser-on time, operative time, total energy use, need for auxiliary procedures, complications, and stone-free rate (SFR) after the first session were recorded. To minimize baseline imbalances, three-arm 1:1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching based on multinomial logistic regression was performed using age, sex, BMI, side, stone location, total stone burden, and HU as covariates, yielding 513 matched patients (171 per group). Both multivariable logistic regression analysis and effect size analysis were performed. Before and after matching, demographic features and stone characteristics were comparable across groups. In both the crude and matched cohorts, TFL (Group 3) was associated with shorter laser-on and operative times and lower total energy consumption than Ho:YAG groups. SFR, the need for auxiliary procedures, and complication rates did not differ among the three groups. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, no independent predictive factor affecting SFR was identified. However, TFL demonstrated medium-to-large effect sizes on operative parameters. In RIRS for renal stones, TFL enables more efficient lithotripsy than conventional and pulse-modulated Ho:YAG lasers, with shorter laser-on and operative times and reduced energy use, while maintaining similar SFR and complication rates. TFL is a safe and effective alternative to Ho:YAG-based lithotripsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41944857What 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.