ArticleAdvances in urology2026
Holmium: YAG Popcorn Lithotripsy-In Vitro Comparison of Settings and MOSES Across Stone Densities.
Article in Advances in urology, 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.
- Holmium: YAG Popcorn Lithotripsy-In Vitro Comparison of Settings and MOSES Across Stone Densities.Advances in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare Holmium: YAG laser settings for popcorn lithotripsy and evaluate the impact of MOSES modulation across stone-density groups. Materials and Methods: An in vitro bench model was used with synthetic gypsum stones prepared at three density levels (low, intermediate, and high: mean attenuation was 574, 945, and 2067 HU, respectively). For each trial, five fragments (2.8-3.3 mm) were treated using popcorn technique with Holmium: YAG laser and 272 µm fiber during a 2 min run under standardized irrigation. Five laser settings (0.3 J/80 Hz, 0.5 J/40 Hz, 1.0 J/20 Hz, 1.0 J/30 Hz, and 1.5 J/20 Hz) were tested with and without MOSES mode: each setting-by-modulation condition was repeated six times. The primary endpoint was percent mass reduction; secondary endpoints were residual fragment counts 1-2 and > 2 mm. Results are presented as mean ± SD, and ANOVA was used for comparison. Results: In the low-density group, percent mass reduction was highest overall (65%-86%), with 1.0 J/30 Hz achieving the greatest reduction, MOSES provided no additional benefit ( Conclusions: In this in vitro popcorn lithotripsy model, 1.0 J/30 Hz provided the most consistent performance across density groups. MOSES modulation did not improve outcomes in low-density stones but was associated with improved efficiency in intermediate- and high-density stones.
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.