Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026
Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium Laser for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ahn Hyun Kyu, Jeong Jae Yong, Moon Young Joon, Kang Dong Hyuk, Jung Hae Do, Kim Lawrence, Kim Kwang Hyun, Lee Joo Yong
Аннотация
Background and Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the Thulium fiber laser (TFL) and Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteroscopic lithotripsy, considering the distinct technical characteristics of these two systems. Materials and Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42023461573), a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through August 2025. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies comparing TFL and Ho:YAG laser in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for urolithiasis. The primary outcomes were the stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates (intraoperative and postoperative). Results: Thirteen studies involving 2217 patients were included. Overall, the TFL group demonstrated a significantly higher SFR compared to the Ho:YAG group (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20-2.06, p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, TFL showed superior SFR compared to Ho:YAG without pulse modulation (OR = 1.69, p = 0.01) and comparable efficacy to Ho:YAG with pulse modulation (OR = 1.52, p = 0.24). Regarding safety, no significant difference was observed in the intraoperative complication rate (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.35-1.70, p = 0.52) or the postoperative complication rate (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.65-1.60, p = 0.93) between the two groups. Conclusions: TFL provides a superior SFR compared to the Ho:YAG laser overall, a benefit primarily driven by its significant outperformance of standard Ho:YAG systems without pulse modulation. Importantly, TFL demonstrates comparable efficacy to modern Ho:YAG systems equipped with pulse modulation. The safety profile of TFL, including intraoperative and postoperative complications, is comparable to that of the Ho:YAG laser. Our findings suggest that TFL is a highly effective and safe modality for ureteroscopic lithotripsy, offering distinct advantages over standard Ho:YAG lasers while performing comparably to the latest pulse-modulated systems.