ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
More energy, same results: high energy settings do not improve the efficiency of dual energy lithotripsy during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectiveNo prior in vivo clinical trial has investigated the effect of varying energy settings on the performance of a dual-energy lithotripsy. We prospectively evaluated various impact and frequency settings during PCNL procedures to achieve optimal fragmentation and extraction of large stones of varying density.
methodsFour impact and frequency settings were chosen based on a prior in vitro study and applied sequentially for 1 min each in a randomized manner during PCNL for large renal calculi greater than 3 cm in 24 patients: 4 Hz + 100% impact, 4 Hz + 30% impact, 12 Hz + 100% impact, and 12 Hz + 30% impact. Suction and ultrasonic settings were kept constant. For each setting, all removed fragments were collected, weighed, and dried to quantify stone removal rates. Fragments were categorized based on particle size, < 2 vs. ≥ 2 mm. Extraction rates (g/min), were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Statistical comparisons used the paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. A sub-analysis was conducted based on density (≥ 1000 HU).
results24 patients were enrolled. Median stone burden was 36 mm (IQR 32-54) and HU was 1170 (IQR 944-1336). Median extraction rates, 0.50 g/min (IQR 0.24-0.93), 0.55 g/min (IQR 0.22-0.87), 0.40 g/min (IQR 0.22-0.89), and 0.48 g/min (IQR 0.30-0.69), respectively, were not statistically different (Fig. 1a). Particle size was not influenced by impact and frequency settings (Fig. 1b). Fragmentation and extraction efficiency of highly dense stones (HU ≥ 1000) were not influenced by settings (Fig. 2). There was no significant difference in fragmentation or extraction efficiency based on stone composition (primarily calcium-based vs. non-calcium-based).
conclusionIncreased frequency and impact settings do not improve the efficiency of a dual-energy lithotripsy for clearance of large or hard stones and are unnecessary.
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.