ArticleBJU international2026
Automated irrigation systems in mitigating laser-induced temperature during simulated ureteroscopy.
Article in BJU international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the temperature changes with laser activation when providing irrigation with a pressure bag vs a fluid management system (FMS). MATERIALS AND
methodsBenchtop experiments were performed with a LithoVue™ Elite (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) flexible ureteroscope placed through an 11/13-F ureteric access sheath into a benchtop pelvicalyceal kidney model. Room temperature saline irrigation, via the scope, was provided either with a pressure bag or FMS. Both systems were pressurised to 200 mmHg and left for 10 min. After 10 min, a holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser was activated at 20, 40, or 60 W for 90 s. Flow rate, irrigation pressure, intrarenal pressure and calyceal temperature were recorded continuously. Experiments were repeated five times. Benchtop empirical temperature data were compared to mathematical model predictions. The mathematical model was then used to predict calyx temperature as a function of flow rate in in vivo conditions.
resultsPressure-bag irrigation flow rate declined from ~38 to ~25 mL/min (36%) over 10 min, whereas the FMS maintained stable flow of ~45 mL/min. Intrarenal pressure remained ≤30 mmHg in all experiments. Consequently, the benchtop calyx mean (standard deviation) temperature rise with pressure bag vs FMS irrigation was: at 20 W 7.9 (1.0)°C vs 6.4 (0.6)°C (P = 0.02); at 40 W 12.8 (3.2)°C vs 10.3 (1.7)°C (P = 0.15); at 60 W 17 (3.4)°C vs 12.4 (1.2)°C (P = 0.02).
conclusionIrrigation flow rate is a key determinant of thermal risk during laser lithotripsy. An automated FMS can maintain consistent flow; mitigating temperature rise and thermal dose in a benchtop model.
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.