ReviewCurrent urology reports2026
Smart Lithotripsy: Lasers, Energy Sources and Efficiency.
Review in Current urology 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo examine the evidence on contemporary lasers and provide a practical framework for platform selection, parameter optimization, and thermal safety based on the principles of smart lithotripsy. RECENT
findingsHolmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) remains versatile for fragmentation and dusting, whereas thulium fiber laser (TFL) provides efficient fine-particle dusting with limited retropulsion. Pulsed thulium: YAG (p-Tm:YAG) shows an intermediate profile between Ho:YAG and TFL, but clinical evidence on lithotripsy outcomes is limited. Higher power settings with Ho:YAG may accelerate ablation, but have to be used carefully with high flow rates and access sheaths. For TFL, high-power settings have not been shown to shorten operative time or improve stone-free outcomes and may increase thermal risk. Future systems may incorporate stone recognition, composition prediction, and tissue protection. There is no ideal laser for every clinical scenario. Urologists should match the platform, settings, and treatment strategy to the intended endpoint, whether fragmentation with active extraction or dusting with passive clearance.
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.