ReviewInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Which is the best laser for ureteroscopy? A Comprehensive Review.
Review in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe landscape of ureteroscopy has been transformed by rapid advancements in laser technology. The transition from the standard Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) to Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) and emerging hybrid technologies (Magneto/Tm:YAG) creates decisional uncertainty. This review analyzes the physical principles, safety, and clinical outcomes of available lasers, proposing a context-based decision-making framework. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature review using PubMed and Embase (2014-2025) yielded 1,902 records. Search terms included "holmium laser nephrolithotripsy," "thulium fiber laser," and "ureteroscopy laser." Fourteen seminal high-quality studies were selected for expert narrative synthesis, focusing on ablation efficiency, stone-free rates (SFR), complications, and cost-effectiveness.
resultsLiterature heterogeneity, particularly inconsistent SFR definitions and imaging modalities, challenges comparative analysis. Clinically, TFL demonstrates superior ablation speeds and dusting capabilities compared to standard Ho:YAG, with equivalent safety. However, High-Power Ho:YAG remains unmatched in versatility for complex stones. Emerging pulsed Tm:YAG and Magneto Cyber Ho systems theoretically combine peak power with dusting efficiency but require further validation. Economically, TFL and High-Power systems demand significantly higher capital investment than Low-Power alternatives.
conclusionsNo universally superior laser exists; selection must be guided by institutional context. We propose a four-scenario framework: (1) Low-Power Ho:YAG is ideal for cost-sensitive, low-volume centers; (2) High-Power Ho:YAG is the standard for high-volume centers treating complex cases; (3) TFL is the choice for maximizing operative efficiency and dusting; and (4) Emerging Hybrid Technologies suit academic centers driving innovation. Future studies must prioritize standardized reporting to solidify the evidence base.
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.