SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Rethinking high-frequency lithotripsy: a review by EAU endourology group.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the current evidence comparing high-frequency (HF) (> 20 Hz) versus low-frequency (LF) (≤ 20 Hz) laser lithotripsy in patients undergoing flexible and/or rigid ureteroscopy for renal and ureteral stones, with focus on stone-free rate (SFR), operative outcomes, and safety profiles.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through October 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective comparative studies, and single-arm studies involving patients undergoing ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with holmium: yttrium aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG), thulium fiber lasers (TFL), and pulsed Thulium: YAG (p-Tm: YAG) lasers. Primary outcomes included SFR, and secondary outcomes included operative duration, energy utilization, and complications.
resultsTwenty-two studies encompassing 2,059 patients were included. SFR demonstrated substantial overlap between LF (67-100%) and HF (77-100%) groups. Operative times ranged from 24.7 to 96.6 min for LF and 19.9-90 min for HF settings. Energy consumption (J/mm³) showed similar ranges: 8.7-29.03 J/mm³ for LF and 1.6-27.9 J/mm³ for HF groups. Overall complication rates remained low (4-21%). Notably, studies using TFL combining HF with high-power (HP) settings for renal stones reported elevated ureteral injury rates (3.1-4.4%). Infectious complications demonstrated frequency-dependent patterns, with HF, HP Ho: YAG settings showing UTI/sepsis rates up to 2.9% in patients with large stones. Bleeding complications appeared more strongly associated with laser technology than frequency settings, with intra-op bleeding occurring more with use of Ho: YAG laser and post-op hematuria occurring more with TFL use.
conclusionHF and LF settings achieved comparable SFR and operative times. The overall incidence of ureteral injury across both frequency ranges was low. However, higher instances of ureteral injury and infection were observed in studies where HF settings were used in combination with HP. Bleeding complications were found to be related to laser technology rather than frequency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771215What 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.