35 43

Cited 0 times in

Cited 0 times in

Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium Laser for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorAhn, Hyun Kyu-
dc.contributor.authorJeong, Jae Yong-
dc.contributor.authorMoon, Young Joon-
dc.contributor.authorKang, Dong Hyuk-
dc.contributor.authorJung, Hae Do-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Lawrence-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Kwang Hyun-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Joo Yong-
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-14T07:58:44Z-
dc.date.available2026-05-14T07:58:44Z-
dc.date.created2026-05-07-
dc.date.issued2026-03-
dc.identifier.issn1010-660X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/212249-
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherMDPI-
dc.relation.isPartOfMEDICINA-LITHUANIA-
dc.relation.isPartOfMEDICINA-LITHUANIA-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLasers, Solid-State* / standards-
dc.subject.MESHLasers, Solid-State* / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHLithotripsy* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHLithotripsy, Laser* / instrumentation-
dc.subject.MESHLithotripsy, Laser* / methods-
dc.subject.MESHThulium* / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.subject.MESHUreteroscopy* / instrumentation-
dc.subject.MESHUreteroscopy* / methods-
dc.titleThulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium Laser for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.googleauthorAhn, Hyun Kyu-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeong, Jae Yong-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMoon, Young Joon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKang, Dong Hyuk-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung, Hae Do-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, Lawrence-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, Kwang Hyun-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Joo Yong-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/medicina62040644-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ03886-
dc.identifier.eissn1648-9144-
dc.identifier.pmid42075517-
dc.subject.keywordureteroscopy-
dc.subject.keywordlithotripsy-
dc.subject.keywordlaser-
dc.subject.keywordurolithiasis-
dc.subject.keywordthulium-
dc.subject.keywordHolmium-
dc.subject.keywordmeta-analysis-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLee, Joo Yong-
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-105036804378-
dc.identifier.wosid001749992100001-
dc.citation.volume62-
dc.citation.number4-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationMEDICINA-LITHUANIA, Vol.62(4), 2026-03-
dc.identifier.rimsid92782-
dc.type.rimsART-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.description.journalClass1-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorureteroscopy-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorlithotripsy-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorlaser-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorurolithiasis-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorthulium-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorHolmium-
dc.subject.keywordAuthormeta-analysis-
dc.subject.keywordPlusURINARY-TRACT CALCULI-
dc.subject.keywordPlusURETERAL STONES-
dc.subject.keywordPlusKIDNEY-STONES-
dc.subject.keywordPlusTFL-
dc.subject.keywordPlusSOCIETY-
dc.subject.keywordPlusHOYAG-
dc.subject.keywordPlusRIRS-
dc.type.docTypeReview-
dc.description.isOpenAccessY-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscie-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscopus-
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategoryMedicine, General & Internal-
dc.relation.journalResearchAreaGeneral & Internal Medicine-
dc.identifier.articleno644-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.