The Canadian journal of urology · 2026
Pulsed solid-state thulium: YAG laser compared to holmium: YAG laser during mini-PCNL.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Becker Benedikt, Hook Sophia, Dapper Carla, Bergmann Julius, Netsch Christopher, Filmar Simon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG) laser technology has long been employed for urinary stone fragmentation; however, its limitations have prompted the exploration of alternative systems such as thulium lasers. This study aims to compare a novel pulsed solid-state Thulium: YAG (Tm: YAG) laser to the standard Ho: YAG laser in Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) lithotripsy for renal calculi.
METHODS: In total, 100 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL were enrolled in this clinical trial. Fifty patients treated with a holmium laser were selected from a retrospective database. These patients were compared to fifty patients who were prospectively enrolled and treated with a new thulium laser. Patient characteristics, stone parameters, operative details, and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in demographics and stone characteristics. The Tm: YAG group demonstrated significantly shorter laser-on-time (7.20 vs. 10.46 min; p < 0.05) and operative time (32.6 vs. 41.2 min; p < 0.05) compared to the Ho: YAG group. There was no difference regarding stone-free rates (SFR) at 24 h, which were 90% in the Ho: YAG group and 92% in the Tm: YAG group (p > 0.999). Intraoperative complications did not significantly differ between groups.
CONCLUSION: The novel pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser demonstrates advantages over the Ho: YAG laser in terms of laser-on-time and operation time, while showing comparable results for stone-free rate and complications. Further clinical trials are needed to compare Tm: YAG and Ho: YAG lasers in various contexts and to evaluate the Tm: YAG laser against the thulium fiber laser (TFL) for a comprehensive understanding of each technology's advantages.
METHODS: In total, 100 patients undergoing Mini-PCNL were enrolled in this clinical trial. Fifty patients treated with a holmium laser were selected from a retrospective database. These patients were compared to fifty patients who were prospectively enrolled and treated with a new thulium laser. Patient characteristics, stone parameters, operative details, and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in demographics and stone characteristics. The Tm: YAG group demonstrated significantly shorter laser-on-time (7.20 vs. 10.46 min; p < 0.05) and operative time (32.6 vs. 41.2 min; p < 0.05) compared to the Ho: YAG group. There was no difference regarding stone-free rates (SFR) at 24 h, which were 90% in the Ho: YAG group and 92% in the Tm: YAG group (p > 0.999). Intraoperative complications did not significantly differ between groups.
CONCLUSION: The novel pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser demonstrates advantages over the Ho: YAG laser in terms of laser-on-time and operation time, while showing comparable results for stone-free rate and complications. Further clinical trials are needed to compare Tm: YAG and Ho: YAG lasers in various contexts and to evaluate the Tm: YAG laser against the thulium fiber laser (TFL) for a comprehensive understanding of each technology's advantages.