See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362541164

Glossary of pre-settings given by laser companies: no consensus!

Article in World Journal of Urology · August 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04090-4

CITATIONS READS

2 230

6 authors, including:

Alba Sierra Mariela Corrales

Hôpital Tenon (Hôpitaux Universitaires Est Parisien) 68 PUBLICATIONS 285 CITATIONS
37 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Bhaskar Somani Olivier Traxer

University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Sorbonne Université
1,110 PUBLICATIONS 9,218 CITATIONS 889 PUBLICATIONS 11,944 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ureteral Access Sheath View project

Periprostatic Fat Characterisation Using Imaging as a Marker of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alba Sierra on 08 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

World Journal of Urology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04090-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Glossary of pre‑settings given by laser companies: no consensus!

Alba Sierra1,2 · Mariela Corrales1,2 · Adrià Piñero1,2 · Merkourios Kolvatzis1,2 · Bhaskar Somani3 · Olivier Traxer1,2

Received: 16 February 2022 / Accepted: 30 June 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Introduction Since the construction of the first laser, many companies around the world have contributed to the development
of new lasers technologies. To be user-friendly, some companies have developed a pre-setting mode in their laser devices.
We aimed to review and compare all laser companies’ pre-settings (PS) already established in the market.
Materials and methods An online search of holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber laser (TFL) devices was carried out.
Manual and PS mode, pulse width and pulse modulation technology data were collected. The PS parameters were collected
directly from the brochure devices or by asking the companies consulting agents.
Results Thirty-nine laser devices were analyzed (33 Ho:YAG and 6 TFL). The power range varies from 15 to 152 W and
35 W to 60 W for Ho:YAG and TFL, respectively. PS are present in 66% of Ho:YAG lasers and the 33% of TFL. Long-pulse
modes can be modified in 12 Ho:YAG and 1 TFL lasers. The median (IQR) PS for dusting stones with Ho:YAG laser is
0.4 J (0.2–1), 21.5 Hz (5–120), and 10 W (1.5–28) for energy, frequency and power, respectively; for Ho:YAG fragmenta-
tion is 0.8 J (0.3–5), 10 (3–15) Hz and 5 (1.5–50) W for energy, frequency, and power, respectively; and for popcorn is 0.8 J
(0.4–1.2), 10 Hz (6–15) and 5 W (4–18) for energy, frequency, and power, respectively. Dusting and fragmentation mode of
Rocamed MH01 and EMS LaserClast 35 are programmed according to the stone type. Most of these settings do not depend
on the size of the fiber being used nor the location and type of stone. For TFL, the pre-sets are divided in bladder stone,
dusting, fine dusting, fragmentation, and ureteral stone.
Conclusion There is a huge variability regarding pre-sets offered by companies because there is no consensus. Pre-sets should
provide a range to work efficacy and safety.

Keywords Laser · Holmium YAG​· Thulium fiber laser · Settings · Kidney calculi · Ureteroscopy · Percutaneous
nephrolithotomy

* Olivier Traxer Introduction

olivier.traxer@aphp.fr
Alba Sierra The first working laser emitter was constructed in the 1960s
asierradelrio@gmail.com
[1] and the first commercial laser lithotripter did not arrive
Mariela Corrales until 1988 [2]. Since its commercialization, this technology
mariela_corrales_a@hotmail.com
has changed and evolved tremendously over the last decade.
Adrià Piñero Urology has always been at the center of the laser litho-
adria.pinero@gmail.com
tripsy evolution. Currently, laser lithotripsy is established
Merkourios Kolvatzis primarily in use as a urological specialty, with 85–90% of
merkolv90@gmail.com
articles published over the last 10 years by urology-affiliated
Bhaskar Somani investigators [3].
bhaskarsomani@yahoo.com
Holmium (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter was introduced in
1
Sorbonne University GRC Urolithiasis No. 20 Tenon clinical practice in 1993 [4]. Some consider it to be the pin-
Hospital, 75020 Paris, France nacle of evolution of lasers in urology [5]. Its wavelength
2
Department of Urology AP‑HP, Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne of 2100 nm is almost completely absorbed by water within
University, 75020 Paris, France 0.4 mm of the laser fiber tip, making the Ho:YAG laser one
3
University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, of the safest lasers ever being used in endourology [6–8].
UK

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

As technology evolves, the pursuit for a safer, more effi-
cient laser technology, has led to the development of another
type of laser, the thulium fiber laser (TFL). Multiple studies
reported about a 1.5–4 times faster stone ablation rate in
favor of the TFL, when lithotripsy was performed on cal-
cium oxalate monohydrate or uric acid stones [9, 10]. Other
favorable aspects for TFL are integration of smaller fibers
with a core diameter as small as 50 μm, lower pulse energy
and super-high frequency [11, 12].
The current and widespread use of Ho:YAG and TFL
lithotripsy of urinary stones has produced many debates
[13]. The search for the best laser lithotripter settings and
the best laser fiber is still being defined [14–17]. To be user-
friendly, most laser companies (LC) have introduced their
own pre-settings (PS) for different endourological proce-
dures. However, what is the definition of a pre-set? Where
do they obtain this information? Is it from laboratory studies
or experts experience? We aim to do a review of the existing
LC’ PS and to evaluate the pulse energy, pulse frequency,
power levels and pulse modes they recommend.
Materials and methods
Two authors (AS and AP) independently searched online to
list all Ho:YAG and TFL laser devices available today. The
terms ‘Holmium:YAG’ and ‘thulium fiber laser’ were used
in association with any of the following: ‘lithotripsy’, ‘lithi-
asis’, ‘lithotripter(s)’, ‘adjustments’ and ‘preset’. The search
was performed in November 2021.
Of each device, data of maximum power, PS and/or man-
ual modes, pulse width and modulation technology was col-
lected by looking the online brochure of the manufacturer’s
website or by asking the companies consulting agents by
e-mail. The PS parameters of the laser machines available in
our center were collected directly from the hospital.
Results
A total of 39 laser devices were analyzed. Of those, 33 were
Ho:YAG laser machines and 6 were TFL laser machines.
The total of 18 LC produce those devices, most of them
manufacturing Ho:YAG technology (13 LC) and a few doing
TFL technology (5 LC). The power range varies from 15 to
152 W and 35 W to 60 W for Ho:YAG and TFL, respectively
(Table 1).
All TFL machines had a manual mode and choices for
pulse width. Only Urolase (IPG medical) offers pulse mod-
ulation. Olympus Company had established pre-settings
options for both of their TFL machines, Soltive Premium
and Soltive Pro lasers (Fig. 1), pre-sets for the new Laser-
Clast Thulium Power from EMS are not available yet.
13
World Journal of Urology
Of the 33 Ho:YAG laser devices, 21 Ho:YAG lasers
(66,7%) from 9 different LC are presented with PS. They
are shown in Table 2, except Hypho Laser from HyperPho-
tonics where no information was found. The manual mode
and pulse width modification was an option in all, except
one laser device. Long-pulse modes can be modified in 12
Ho:YAG lasers (37.5%). Dusting and fragmentation mode of
Rocamed MH01 are programmed according to the stone type
(Fig. 2), similar to EMS LaserClast 35, which is according to
the hardness in relation to Hounsfield units (HU).
Dusting
For dusting stones with Ho:YAG laser, the median (IQR) PS
energy is 0.4 (0.2–1) J. Frequencies varies between 20 and
40 Hz or above 50 Hz, high or very high frequency, respec-
tively. Frequencies such us 50 were chosen by Empower
(Olympus), Wolf and Quanta; and 80 Hz, by Lumenis.
Median (IQR) PS power is 10 (1.5–28) W. Aside from EMS
LaserClast 35, no consideration has been made regarding
the fiber size (i.e., with a 200 µm laser fiber, dusting power
is 4.8 W for all stone types; but, with a 1000 µm laser fiber,
it is 18 W, 22.5 W, 21.6 W, and 22.5 W for soft, medium,
hard and super-hard stones, respectively). There is no uni-
formity in pulse selection: four companies chose short pulse,
three medium pulse, one long pulse and two chose long-
modulated pulse.
Fragmentation
The median (IQR) PS for Ho:YAG fragmentation is 0.8
(0.3–5) J, 10 (3–15) Hz and 5 (1.5–50) W for energy, fre-
quency, and power, respectively. Based on the laser fiber
size, EMS designed pre-sets such that for a medium hardness
stone, the pre-sets are 4 W, 9.6 W, 14.4 W, 30 W, 30 W and
30 W for 200, 275, 365, 550, 800 and 1000 µm laser fibers,
respectively. All the companies chose short pulse.
Popcorning
5 Ho:YAG companies establish popcorning PS. The median
(IQR) is 0.8 (0.4–1.2) J, 10 (6–15) Hz and 6 (4–18) W for
energy, frequency, and power, respectively. Short pulse was
chosen by Quanta company, medium for Olympus and long
modulated for Dornier MedTech, EMS and Storz companies.
The EMS LaserClast 35 pre-sets for popcorning differed
based on laser size and stone hardness.
Boxplot with Ho:YAG companies’ energy, frequency, and
power pre-settings for dusting, fragmenting and popcorning
are represented in Fig. 3.
World Journal of Urology

Table 1  Lithotripter options from holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) lasers and thulium fiber laser (TFL) according to the existence of pre-setting, man-
ual mode, pulse width choosing and newly developed long-pulse modes (switch the waveform into a modulated wave—split or sequenced)
Company Laser name Power (W) Pre-setting Manual mode Pulse width Pulse
choosing modula-
tion

Ho:YAG​ COOK Rhapsody 30 No Yes Yes No

Lumenis VersaPulse PowerSuite 60 No Yes No No
100 No Yes No No
Pulse 30 No Yes No No
50 No Yes Yes No
100 No Yes Yes No
Moses Pulse 120 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boston Scientific StoneLight 15 Yes Yes No No
Auriga 30 Yes Yes No No
Auriga XL 50 Yes Yes No No
Olympus Empower 35 Yes No No No
65 Yes Yes Yes Yes
105 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dornier MedTech Medilas 20 Yes Yes No Yes
100 No Yes Yes No
140 No Yes Yes No
Medilas Solvo 35 Yes Yes No Yes
Quanta System Cyber Ho 60 Yes Yes No Yes
105 Yes Yes Yes Yes
152 Yes Yes Yes Yes
DK30 30 Yes Yes No No
Litho 35 Yes Yes No No
LithoEVO 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hyper Photonics Hypo 35 Yes NA NA NA
Richard Wolf MegaPulse 70 Yes Yes Yes No
EMS Swiss LaserClast 20 No Yes Yes No
LaserClast 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Convergent Laser Odyssey 30 No Yes Yes No
Technologies
Storz Calculase II 20 Yes Yes No No
Calculase III 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rocamed MH01 30 Yes Yes Yes No
LisaLaser Sphinx Jr 30 No Yes Yes Yes
LisaLaser Sphinx 45 Litho 45 No Yes Yes Yes
TFL IPG medical Urolase 60 No Yes Yes Yes
Quanta Fiberdust 60 No Yes Yes No
Rocamed Sirus 60 No Yes Yes No
Olympus Soltive Premium 60 Yes Yes Yes No
Soltive Pro 35 Yes Yes Yes No
EMS LaserClast 35 NA NA NA NA

NA Not available

Discussion and popcorning [18–29]. Nevertheless, the precise defini-

tion of PS is largely unknown. It is unclear on whether they
To increase their user-friendliness, most of the LC cur- are parameters looking for the optimal ablation laser effi-
rently available on the market use PS according to the three ciency or if they are acceptable settings to proceed safely
well-known lithotripsy techniques: dusting, fragmentation, and efficiently.

13
 World Journal of Urology

Fig. 1  Pre-setting options:

Olympus Soltive Premium and Bladder stone 4J/14Hz
Soltive Pro Bladder stone
Hemostasis 1J/20Hz

Dusng 0,2J/100Hz
Dusng
Fragmentaon 0,6J/30Hz

So stone 0,05J/400Hz

Lithotripsy Fine dusng
Hardcore stone 0,1J/200Hz

So stone 0,4J/40Hz

Fragmentaon
Hardcore stone 1J/20Hz

So stone 0,2J/40Hz

Ureter stone
Hardcore stone 0,6J/14Hz

Solve
Ablaon 2J/10Hz
Premium/Pro
Ablaon/excision
Excision 1J/30Hz
So ssue
Incision 1J/20Hz
Incision
Hemostasis 1J/20Hz

Enucleaon 1J/60Hz
Enucleaon
Hemostasis 1J/20Hz
HBP
Vaporisaon 2J/30Hz
Vaporisaon
Hemostasis 1J/20Hz

Regarding our results, each Ho:YAG LC has chosen dif-
ferent PS, with a huge variability between them. All this
could be explained due to the lack of knowledge about the
appropriate PS and, therefore, the lack of consensus. For
dusting, they tend to include low energies on the PS, with
a mean < 0.5 J. However, regarding frequency, the range
between companies is very wide (IQR 5–80 Hz) due to two
clear trends: high and very high frequencies. It is well known
that very high frequencies (i.e., > 50 Hz) are related not only
to a faster lithotripsy but to an impaired vision due to a pro-
nounced “snowstorm effect”, resulting in less effective dust-
ing [30]. Besides, if we consider that PS are designed for
trainees, a bad vision could lead to more ureteral or renal
injury, so high frequencies cannot always be recommended.
In addition, the frequency variation could also be explained
by low-power (LP) and high-power (HP) Ho:YAG systems.
However, a recent systematic review found that, in labora-
tory studies, neither HP nor LP provided an advantage based
on stone burden [16].
The same variability is found concerning fragmentation
PS, were the energy’s IQR goes from 0.3 to 5 J and power’s
IQR varies between 2 and 50 W. Power levels higher than
30 W are rarely used for endocorporeal laser lithotripsy due
to the significant risk of collateral tissue damage arising
from the locally high temperatures associated with HP litho-
tripsy [31–33]. Furthermore, if the pulse duration is greater
than 1000 µsec (which is easily achieved with TFL settings),
there is a risk of direct thermal transfer to soft tissue [34].
In terms of pulse width values, they are confidential and are
not fixed values, i.e., when selecting “long pulse”, each laser

13
 World Journal of Urology

Table 2  Ho:YAG laser companies with lithotripsy pre-settings

Company Laser name Dusting Fragmentation Popcorn

Energy (J) Frequency (Hz) Power (W) Pulse Energy (J) Frequency (Hz) Power (W) Pulse Energy (J) Frequency (Hz) Power (W) Pulse

Lumenis Moses Pulse™ 120H 0.3 120 36 Short 0.8 10 8 Short

0.8 10 8 1 15 15
Boston Scientific Auriga 30 0.3 6 1.8 Short
Auriga XL 0.3 5 1.5
Olympus EMPOWER H35 0.5 5 2.5 Long 0.5 3 1.5 Short
EMPOWER H65 0.2 50 10 Short 1.5 12 18 1.2 15 18 Medium
EMPOWER H100 0.2 50 10 Short 1.5 12 18 1.2 15 18
Dornier MedTech Medilas SOLVO H35 0.4 (0.2–08) 18 (18–22) 7.2 Medium 0.4 (0.4–2.5) 5 (5–10) 2 Short 0.8 (0.8–1.8) 8 (5–10) 6.4 Modulate
Quanta Cyber Ho 0.2 50 10 Medium 0.8 10 8 Short 1.2 15 18 Short
1 12 12 Modu-
late
Richard Wolf MegaPulse 70 + 0.7 40 28 Medium 2.5 15 37.5 Short
0.4 50 20 5 10 50
EMS LaserClast 35* Soft 0.4 12 4.8 Long 0.3 10 3 Short 0.4 10 4 Long
Medium 0.4 4 0.4 4
Hard 0.5 5 0.5 5
Super 0.5 5 0.5 5
Hard
Storz Calculase III 0.4 25 10 Short 0.8 6 4.8 Short 1 6 6 Burst mode
0.4 6 2.4 Short

*
Laser fiber 200 µm pre-sets

13
 World Journal of Urology

Fig. 2  Pre-settings options:

Rocamed MH01 Vaporisaon-
1J/15Hz
Long Pulse
CaOx
MonoHydrate
Fragmentaon-
1.5J/5Hz
Short Pulse

Vaporisaon-
0.6J/15Hz
Long Pulse
CaOx
DiHydrate
Fragmentaon-
1.2J/5Hz
Short Pulse

Vaporisaon-
0.8J/15Hz
Long Pulse
Cysne
Fragmentaon-
1.5J/5Hz
Short Pulse
Rocamed MH01
(Lithotripsy)
Vaporisaon-
0.7J/15Hz
Long Pulse
Uric Acid
Fragmentaon-
1.2J/5Hz
Short Pulse

Vaporisaon-
0.6J/15Hz
Long Pulse
Struvite /
Infecons
Fragmentaon-
1J/5Hz
Short Pulse

Vaporisaon-
0.5J/15Hz
Long Pulse
Others
Fragmentaon-
1.2J/5Hz
Short Pulse

device recalculates the pulse according to the pre-set to give
the best pulse width possible.
The LC’ PS are based on bench studies, limited marked
clinical evaluations, advisory boards meetings, among oth-
ers, but there is no solid data to confirm the best PS. The
search for optimal Ho:YAG laser settings goes a long way
back, since 1993 and still continues today. We tend to know
the appropriate range to proceed according to the lithotripter
mode, based mostly on in vitro studies. However, it is impor-
tant to remember that the laboratory is always a controlled
medium, most of the results from the laboratory are not
yet validated in real life, so we cannot always extrapolate
those results [14–16]. In vivo, lithotripsy efficiency does
not depend on laser settings only, but also, on a wide variety
of factors such as the patient’s anatomy, endoscopic vision,
irrigation, technique and endourological skills.
Referring to the TFL, to date we have no consensus on
the ideal clinical PS. We count with a small number of pre-
clinical and clinical TFL publications [10, 35]. Nonetheless,
Olympus proposed some PS that should be used with caution
because there is no strong clinical evidence to support these
affirmations. Concerning Olympus PS, i.e., for dusting, they
recommend frequencies up to 400 Hz [29] with the safety
concerns detailed above.
On the other hand, it is important to highlight that all these
mentioned PS, except those from EMS, are not associated with

13
World Journal of Urology

the size of the fiber being used. This concerns “energy density”
which is the amount of energy that is delivered per stone sur-
face area. Compared to the 200 µm core fiber, a 50 µm one, has
16 times less cross-sectional area, meaning that it will deliver
a laser beam 16 times more intense that would be capable of
performing a more efficient lithotripsy with lower lithotripsy
settings, including very low pulse energies (as low as 0.025 J)
[11, 17]. Even if nowadays, we are using the 150 µm core fiber
diameter laser fiber of the TFL, those benefits are already play-
ing a role in the endocorporeal lithotripsy. Therefore, consider-
ing all these amazing properties of small fibers, it is unclear
why the proposed PS from different LC are so high. Perhaps
the laser device manufacturers should take this into account
when proposing PS on their machines.
Moreover, stone localization is crucial while choosing set-
tings. Regarding Ho:YAG and TFL power, suggested settings
for the dusting/fragmentation of ureteral stones are 10–15 W,
for dusting of kidney stones it is 15–30 W, and for fragmenta-
tion of bladder stones, it is 30–50 W in other to avoid tissue
damage [10, 35]. We found that few companies consider a
classification regarding the stone location which is fundamen-
tal when choosing the laser settings to avoid thermal damage.
For instance, Olympus is one of them, dividing PS according
the ureteral or bladder location; however, we found that some
of them include high frequencies with no evidence to back
these up.
Stone type or hardness also plays a major role at the time of
choosing our laser settings. The ablation thresholds for differ-
ent urinary stone compositions, such as harder calcium oxalate
monohydrate or softer uric acid stones, varies. Therefore, we
should also adjust our settings in every “stone composition
scenario” [36]. Having this in mind, there are some compa-
nies, like Rocamend or EMS LaserClast, that developed PS
according to the nature of the stone. Rocamed MH01 [37]
programs their pre-sets according to the stone composition, but
Sampogna et al. demonstrated that even expert endourological
surgeons may not be able to recognize the stone composition
[38]. In line with Rocamed, EMS LaserClast [28] classifies
them in function of their hardness according to HU.
The main limitation of this publication is that we assume
that if experts cannot agree on what settings should be used,
it is difficult to claim the laser companies for their variabil-
ity. However, the goal of PS should be a safe departure point,
to orientate the surgeon towards an optimal procedure range,
and a fix parameter should not be considered. Hence, a sin-
gle value cannot be optimal in every situation.

Conclusion

There is a huge variability regarding pre-sets offered by

Fig. 3  Boxplot with companies’ energy, frequency and power of companies. A PS must be not only effective, but safe too.
Ho:YAG pre-settings for dusting, fragmenting and popcorning Laser efficiency is obtained as a result of the whole surgical

13

technique and it is a dynamic parameter that varies depend-
ing on multiple factors, such as fragment size, quality of
vision, stone or kidney movement, irrigation, fiber size and
surgeon skills. Maybe a PS would be more helpful if it is
represented as an optimal range, instead of a fix parameter.
Acknowledgements Prof. Olivier Traxer is a consultant for Coloplast,
Rocamed, EMS, Boston Scientific and IPG.
Author contributions AS: data collection and manuscript writing. MC:
data analysis and manuscript writing. AP: data collection. MK: data
management. BS: manuscript editing. OT: project development and
manuscript editing.
Funding This is an independent study and is not funded by any external
body.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Informed consent Informed consent is not needed.
Human and animal rights This research does not involve research in
humans or animals.
References
1. Maiman TH (1960) Stimulated optical radiation in ruby. Nature
187(4736):493–494
2. U.S. (2010) Corporate news: news from candela corporation.
Laser Med Surg News Adv 6(5):24–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​
lms.​1988.6.​5.​24
3. Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2015) Update on lasers in urology
2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium–aluminum–gar-
net (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J
Urol 33(4):463–469. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00345-​014-​1395-1
(Epub 2014 Sep 4 PMID: 25185524)
4. Johnson DE, Cromeens DM, Price RE (1992) Use of the
holmium:YAG laser in urology. Lasers Surg Med 12(4):353–363.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​lsm.​19001​20402 (PMID: 1386643)
5. Kronenberg P, Somani B (2018) Advances in lasers for the treat-
ment of stones-a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11934-​018-​0807-y
6. Leveillee RJ, Lobik L (2003) Intracorporeal lithotripsy: which
modality is best? Curr Opin Urol 13(3):249–253
7. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Hecht V et al (2011) Impact of collateral
damage to endourologic tools during laser lithotripsy—in vitro
comparison of three different clinical laser systems. J Endourol
25(4):667–672
8. Floratos DL, La de Rosette JJ (1999) Lasers in urology. BJU Int
84(2):204–211
9. Blackmon RL, Irby PB, Fried NM (2010) Holmium:YAG (lambda
= 2,120 nm) versus thulium fiber (lambda = 1908 nm) laser litho-
tripsy. Lasers Surg Med 42(3):232–236
10. Corrales M, Traxer O (2021) Initial clinical experience with the
new thulium fiber laser: first 50 cases. World J Urol 39(10):3945–
3950. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00345-​021-​03616-6 (Epub 2021
Feb 15 PMID: 33590280)
13
World Journal of Urology
11. Traxer O, Keller EX (2020) Thulium fiber laser: the new player
for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium:YAG
laser. World J Urol 38(8):1883–1894. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00345-​019-​02654-5 (Epub 2019 Feb 6. PMID: 30729311;
PMCID: PMC7363731)
12. Schembri M, Sahu J, Aboumarzouk O, Pietropaolo A, Som-
ani BK (2020) Thulium fiber laser: The new kid on the block.
Turk J Urol. 46(Supp. 1):S1–S10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5152/​tud.​
2020.​20093 (Epub 2020 May 27. PMID: 32479257; PMCID:
PMC7731960)
13. Kuo RL, Aslan P, Zhong P et al (1998) Impact of holmium
laser settings and fiber diameter on stone fragmentation and
endoscope deflection. J Endourol 12(6):523–527
14. Spore SS, Teichman JM, Corbin NS et al (1999) Holmium: YAG
lithotripsy: optimal power settings. J Endourol 13(8):559–566
15. Sea J, Jonat LM, Chew BH et al (2012) Optimal power settings
for holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol 187(3):914–919
16. Ventimiglia E, Pauchard F, Quadrini F, Sindhubodee S, Kam-
koum H, Jiménez Godínez A, Doizi S, Traxer O (2021) High-
and low-power laser lithotripsy achieves similar results: a sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical series. J
Endourol 35(8):1146–1152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​end.​2020.​
0090 (Epub 2021 May 24 PMID: 33677987)
17. Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2019) The laser of the future: reality
and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic
review. Transl Androl Urol 8(Suppl 4):S398–S417. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​21037/​tau.​2019.​08.​01.​PMID:​31656​746;​PMCID:​PMC67​
90412
18. Cook® Medical. Rhapsody® H-30® Holmium Laser System:
user manual. [Internet] Available from: https://​www.​cookm​edi-
cal.​eu/​data/​IFU_​PDF/T_​CD_H-​30EU_​REV0.​PDF
19. Lumenis®. ­Moses TM Pulse 120H [Internet]. Available from:
https:// ​ l umen ​ i s. ​ c om/ ​ m edic ​ a l/ ​ h olmi ​ u m- ​ p rodu ​ c ts/ ​ l umen​
is-​moses-​pulse-​120h/
20. Olympus [Internet]. Products: Lithotripsy Systems. Olympus
EMPOWER H35, H65 and H100. Available from: https://​www.​
olymp​us-​europa.​com/​medic​al/​en/​Produ​cts-​and-​Solut​ions/​Produ​
cts/​Produ​ct/​OLYMP​US-​EMPOW​ER-​H35-​H65-​and-​H100.​html
21. Quanta System. Products: Surgical lasers (CyberHo Family,
Litho EVO and Litho) [Internet]. Available from: https://​www.​
quant​asyst​em.​com/​produ​cts/​surge​r y/
22. Karl Storz. Calculase® III – The End of the Stone Age [Inter-
net]. Available from: https://​www.​karls​torz.​com/​cps/​rde/​xbcr/​
karls​torz_​assets/​ASSETS/​36104​63.​pdf
23. Boston Scientific. Auriga™ XL 4007 Laser System: User’s
Manual [Internet]. Available from: https://​base.​euro-​pharm​at.​
com/​PDF/​14795-​42894.​pdf dorn
24. Dornier MedTech. Dornier Medilas® H Solvo® 35 [Internet]
Available from: https://​www.​dorni​er.​com/​europe/​dorni​er-​medil​
as-h-​solvo-​35/
25. Richard Wolf. MegaPulse 7­ 0+. Available from: https://​www.​
richa​r d-​wolf.​c om/​f ilea​d min/​u ser_​u pload/​U Eber​gang_​2 021/​
D711e​n2810​21_​MegaP​ulse7​0plus.​pdf
26. L.I.S. Sphinx jr. Laser Holmium [Internet]. Available from:
http://​new.​laser​insur​gery.​fr/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2017/​12/​Broch​
ure-​Sphinx-​jr-​10.​11-​Français.​pdf
27. L.I.S. Sphinx® Holmium Laser [Internet]. Available from:
http://​new.​laser​insur​gery.​fr/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2018/​01/​Broch​
ures-​Sphinx-​07-​2013.​pdf
28. EMS Urology. Swiss Laserclast [Internet]. Available from:
https://​www.​ems-​urolo​gy.​com/​produ​cts/​swiss-​laser​clast
29. Olympus [Internet]. SOLTIVE Premium – SuperPulsed Laser
System [Internet] Available from: https://​www.​olymp​us-​europa.​
com/​m edic​a l/​e n/​P rodu​c ts-​a nd-​S olut​i ons/​P rodu​c ts/​P rodu​c t/​
SOLTI​VE-​Premi​um.​html
World Journal of Urology
30. Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B,
Krambeck A et al (2017) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a
review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​end.​2017.​0641
31. Aldoukhi AH, Hall TL, Ghani KR, Maxwell AD, MacConaghy
B, Roberts WW (2018) Caliceal fluid temperature during high-
power holmium laser lithotripsy in an in vivo porcine model. J
Endourol 32(8):724–729. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​end.​2018.​0395
(Epub 2018 Jul 13. PMID: 29905092; PMCID: PMC6096348)
32. Okhunov Z, Jiang P, Afyouni AS, Ayad M, Arada RB, Brevik A,
Akopian G, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV (2021) Caveat
emptor: the heat is “ON”: an in vivo evaluation of the thulium
fiber laser and temperature changes in the porcine kidney during
dusting and fragmentation modes. J Endourol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1089/​end.​2021.​0206 (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33906433)
33. Dragos LB, Somani B, Keller E et al (2019) 386: Super-pulse
thulium fiber versus high power holmium laser: what about tem-
perature? Eur Suppl 18:e505–e508
34. Chan et al (2001) A perspective on laser lithotripsy: the fragmen-
tation processes. J Endourol 15(3):257–273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1089/​08927​79017​50161​737
35. Traxer O, Corrales M (2021) Managing urolithiasis with thulium
fiber laser: updated real-life results-a systematic review. J Clin
Med 10(15):3390. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jcm10​153390.​PMID:​
34362​169;​PMCID:​PMC83​47545
View publication stats
36. Keller EX, De Coninck V, Doizi S et al (2021) Thulium fiber laser:
ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? World J Urol
39:1693–1698
37. Rocamed. Products catalogue: MH01 30W Holmium YAG laser
(2020) [Internet]. Available from: https://​www.​rocam​ed.​com/w
​ p-​
conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2020/ 02/MKG- CT -EN- 2020.0. pdf
38. Sampogna G, Basic D, Geavlete P, Galán Llopis JA, Reis Santos
J, Saltirov I, Sarica K, Stavridis S, Skolarikos A, Trinchieri A
(2021) Endoscopic identification of urinary stone composition: A
study of South Eastern Group for Urolithiasis Research (SEGUR
2). Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 45(2):154–159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​acuro.​2020.​01.​015
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.
13