SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024
High-power versus low-power laser settings during endoscopic stone disease management: a systematic review from the EAU endourology section.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Rethinking high-frequency lithotripsy: a review by EAU endourology group.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOptimal laser settings during endoscopic stone disease management still represents a debatable issue. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize all existing evidence regarding the comparison of high-power (HP) versus low-power (LP) laser settings during different endoscopic lithotripsy procedures.
methodsPubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically screened, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. All endoscopic laser lithotripsy surgical approaches were included, including ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and transurethral lithotripsy for bladder stones. Pediatric patients were also included.
resultsIn total, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in final qualitative synthesis. In most studies total operative time (OT) was shorter for the HP group. Mean fragmentation time was homogenously significantly shorter in the HP group. Stone-free rates (SFR) ranged from 59.0% to 100% for the LP group and from 78.9% to 100% for the HP group. Total complication rates were higher for the LP group in six studies, equivalent between the two groups in one study and higher in the HP group in one study.
conclusionHP laser lithotripsy is a safe and efficient approach for URS, RIRS, PCNL and cystolithotripsy. HP laser settings were associated with significantly shorter total operative time, while some studies reported also better SFR in the HP groups. The implementation of more Randomized Controlled Trials comparing HP and LP laser lithotripsy in different stone settings is of outmost importance, so that better conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39681789What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.