Table 1 Comparison between in vitro and preclinical studies
Study | Laser setting | Major conclusion |
|---|---|---|
Ablation rate | ||
Andreeva et al. [22], 2020 | Laser settings were chosen according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and the clinical literature | At equivalent settings, SP TFL ablation rates were higher in both dusting mode (threefold for COM stones and 2.5-fold for UA stones) and fragmentation mode (twofold for UA stones) |
Ventimiglia et al. [23], 2020 | Equivalent settings were used for both lasers: energies:0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5 and 2 J, and frequency = 80, 35, 20, 15, and 8 Hz, respectively | SP TFL induced significantly higher ablation |
Panthier et al. [20], 2021 | The TFL: “fine dusting” (FD: 0.15 J/100 Hz); “dusting” (D: 0.5 J/30 Hz); “fragmentation” (Fr: 1 J/15 Hz); Ho:YAG laser: “dusting” (D: 0.5 J/30 Hz); “fragmentation” (Fr: 1 J/15 Hz) | At equal settings and CDF, SP TFL ablation rates are at least twofold higher than those with the Ho:YAG |
Sierra et al. [25], 2022 | Stone dusting: 0.5 J/10 Hz, 0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.7 J/10 Hz, 0.7 J/20 Hz, 1 J/12 Hz, 1 J/20 Hz for both lasers | The overall ablation rate was 27% greater with the SP TFL than with the Ho:YAG laser |
Sierra et al. [26], 2022 | 3 J/5 Hz (1.5W), 0.3 J/20 Hz (6W), 1.2 J/5 Hz (6W) and 1.2 J/20 Hz (24W) for both lasers | High-power setting (24W) was associated with higher delivered energy and higher ablation rates in both lasers (P < 0.001). Regardless of the settings, higher ablation rate was observed with SP TFL than with the Ho:YAG laser |
Jiang et al. [21], 2023 | SP TFL: 0.2 J, 80 Hz Ho:YAG laser: 0.4 J, 40 Hz | SP TFL ablated stones faster, with less energy expenditure, and a higher stone clearance rate |
Chew et al. [15], 2023 | SP TFL: short pulse 0.6 J/30 Hz,0.1 J/200 Hz 120 W Ho:YAG laser: short pulse 0.8 J/10 Hz, long pulse:0.3 J/70 Hz, moses mode: 0.3 J/70 Hz | The dusting and fragmenting efficiency of SP TFL is superior to that of the 120 W Ho:YAG laser |
Kutchukian et al. [24], 2023 | SP TFL: ‘‘fine dusting’’ (FD: 0.15 J/100 Hz), ‘‘dusting’’ (D: 0.5 J/30 Hz) and ‘‘fragmentation’’ (Fr: 1 J/15–30 Hz) Ho:YAG:‘‘dusting’’ (D: 0,5 J/20 Hz) and ‘‘fragmentation’’ (Fr:1 J/15 Hz) | SP TFL presented higher ablation rates than the Ho:YAG |
Fragmentation | ||
Jiang P et al. [29], 2022 | Dusting settings: SP TFL:0.2 J × 80 Hz; Ho: YAG:0.4 J × 40 Hz; Ho:YAG-MOSES: 0.2 J × 80 Hz | SP TFL typically produced fragments < 2 mm, while the Ho:YAG and Ho:YAG–MOSES generated larger maximum fragment sizes of 4 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively |
Chew BH et al. [15], 2023 | SP TFL: short pulse 0.6 J/30 Hz,0.1 J/200 Hz. 120 W Ho:YAG laser: short pulse 0.8 J/10 Hz, long pulse:0.3 J/70 Hz, Moses mode: 0.3 J/70 Hz | SP TFL lithotripsy produces fewer particles > 2 mm in stone fragmentation compared to the Ho:YAG laser. Most stones treated with SP TFL turn into dust < 0.5 mm |
Jiang P et al. [21], 2023 | SP TFL: 0.2 J, 80 Hz. Ho:YAG laser: 0.4 J, 40 Hz | After SP TFL lithotripsy, 77% of residual fragments were ≤ 1 mm, compared to 17% with the Ho:YAG |
Retropulsion | ||
Andreeva et al. [22], 2020 | Laser settings were chosen according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and the clinical literature | SP TFL laser generated significantly lower retropulsion effects at equal pulse energies |
Ventimiglia et al. [23], 2020 | Equivalent settings were used for both lasers: energies:0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5 and 2 J, and frequency = 80, 35, 20, 15, and 8 Hz, respectively | SP TFL results in lower retropulsion and movement speed of the stone compared to the Ho:YAG laser |
Temperature | ||
Andreeva et al. [22], 2020 | Laser settings were chosen according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and the clinical literature | No substantial difference in the maximum temperature rise of water in the vicinity of the illuminated volume was observed between the two laser systems |
Taratkin et al. [30], 2020 | Equivalent settings were used for both lasers: 0.2 J, 40 Hz | SP TFL and Ho:YAG lasers are not different in terms of volume-averaged temperature increase when the same settings are used in both lasers |
Molina et al. [31], 2021 | Dusting settings: SP TFL:0.1 J, 200 Hz, SP; Ho:YAG:0.3 J, 70 Hz, LP. Fragmenting :0.8 J, 8 Hz, SP for both lasers | Median ureteral intra-luminal temperature rise during dusting settings was equivalent for both lasers, while it was higher in the SP TFL during fragmentation. However, neither reached the threshold for thermal injury based on the duration of exposure |
Sierra et al. [25], 2022 | Stone dusting: 0.5 J/10 Hz, 0.5 J/20 Hz, 0.7 J/10 Hz, 0.7 J/20 Hz, 1 J/12 Hz, 1 J/20 Hz for both lasers | The temperature changes caused by the two lasers during treatment were similar, and no differences were found after anatomic pathology evaluation 3 weeks later |
Belle et al. [32], 2022, | Four different power settings for both lasers: 0.6 J/6 Hz, 1 J/10 Hz, 2 J/10 Hz, and 0.6 J/50 Hz | Under standardized irrigation (35 mL/min) with 60-s laser activation across four power settings (3.6, 10, 20, and 30 W), SP TFL consistently generated significantly higher average ureteral fluid temperatures than the Ho:YAG laser at all power levels. While maximum temperatures remained below the critical 43 °C threshold for both lasers at 3.6,10 and 20 W, the SP TFL exceeded 43 °C at 30 W |
Jiang et al. [21], 2023 | SP TFL: 0.2 J, 80 Hz. Ho:YAG laser: 0.4 J, 40 Hz | The temperature during the use of SP TFL and Ho: YAG laser to ablate kidney stones in pig kidney models was below 44 °c for both. |
Laser fiber fracture | ||
Uzan et al. [35], 2021 | Three laser settings were common to both lasers: 0.5 J × 12 Hz, 0.8 J × 8 Hz, 2 J × 3 Hz | SP TFL has a lower fracture risk than the Ho:YAG laser |
Image distortion | ||
Miller CS et al.[36], 2023 | Ho:YAG: Short-Pulse; Ho:YAG Moses: Distance and Contact; SP TFL: Short-Pulse. Laser settings were common to both lasers: energy of 1.0 or 0.5 J and its corresponding Hz for total power of 10, 20, 30, and 40 W | The Ho:YAG laser induces image interference at greater distances than the SP TFL |