Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N, Fuller A, Matsuda T, Matlaga B et al (2017) Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol 35(9):1395–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8
Kaźmierczak J, Bartosiński R, Szustak J, Wijata A, Stępień Z, Dutkiewicz J et al (2025) Urolithiasis: Comprehensive Review of Etiology. Diagnosis and Treatment Quality in Sport 39:58490. https://doi.org/10.12775/QS.2025.39.58490
Zeng G, Zhao Z, Mazzon G, Pearle M, Choong S, Skolarikos A et al (2022) European association of urology section of urolithiasis and international alliance of urolithiasis joint consensus on retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of renal stones. Eur Urol Focus 8(5):1461–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.011
Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M (2021) Retrograde intrarenal surgery: past, present, and future. Invest Clinic Urol 62(2):121–135. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20200526
Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N, Somani BK (2015) Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: comparative outcomes from a university hospital over similar time period. Cent Eur J Urol 68(2):183–186. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.509
Barone B, Crocetto F, Vitale R, Di Domenico D, Caputo V, Romano F, et al. (2020) Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva urologica e nefrologica The Italian journal of urology and nephrology.;72(4):441–50. Epub 2020/02/23. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0393-2249.20.03721-2. PubMed PMID: 32083423.
Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):468–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040
Sandhu AS, Srivastava A, Madhusoodanan P, Sinha T, Gupta SK, Kumar A et al (2007) Holmium: YAG laser for intra corporeal lithotripsy. Med J Armed Forces India 63(1):48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-1237(07)80109-2
Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
De Coninck V, Hente R, Claessens M, Duchateau A, Doizi S, Keller EX (2021) High-power, high-frequency Ho:YAG lasers are not essential for retrograde intrarenal surgery. Eur Urol Focus 7(1):5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.12.007
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
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pietropaolo A, Mani M, Hughes T, Somani BK. Role of low- versus high-power laser in the treatment of lower pole stones: prospective non-randomized outcomes from a university teaching hospital. Therapeutic advances in urology. 2022;. Epub 2022/06/03. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221097345. PubMed PMID: 35651485; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC9149605.
Erol E, Ecer G, Kiremit MC, Gokce Mİ, Balasar M, Sarikaya AF et al (2024) Multicentric evaluation of high and low power lasers on RIRS success using propensity score analysis. Urolithiasis 52(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01535-w
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kashani K, Cheungpasitporn W, Ronco C (2017) Biomarkers of acute kidney injury: the pathway from discovery to clinical adoption. Clin Chem Lab Med 55(8):1074–1089. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0973
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Schrezenmeier EV, Barasch J, Budde K, Westhoff T, Schmidt-Ott KM. Biomarkers in acute kidney injury - pathophysiological basis and clinical performance. Acta physiologica (Oxford, England). 2017;219(3):554–72. Epub 2016/07/31. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12764. PubMed PMID: 27474473; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5575831.
Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F, Papaluca M, Ozer JS, Webb CP et al (2010) Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and predictive safety testing consortium. Nat Biotechnol 28(5):455–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1625
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ecer G, Sönmez MG, Aydın A, Topçu C, Alalam HNI, Güven S et al (2022) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal stone surgery with and without a ureteral access sheath using kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) levels: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 50(5):625–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01345-y
Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
Corp. I. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Released 2020; ( ):. Epub doi:. PubMed PMID:; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC
García Rojo E, Traxer O, Vallejo Arzayús DM, Castellani D, Ferreti S, Gatti C, et al. Comparison of Low-Power vs High-Power Holmium Lasers in Pediatric Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Outcomes. Journal of endourology. 2023;37(5):509–15. Epub 2023/03/03. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0778. PubMed PMID: 36860192.
Peretti D, Dalmasso E, Pecoraro A, Ambruosi C, Venzano F, Fiori C et al (2022) Low-energy high-frequency Ho-YAG lithotripsy: is RIRS going forward? A case-control study. Urolithiasis 50(1):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-021-01282-2
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I, Sfoungaristos S, Leotsakos I, Heifetz EM et al (2019) Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using Lumenis Laser p120w and standard 20 W laser: a comparative study. J Endourol 33(7):585–589. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0181
Shrestha A, Corrales M, Adhikari B, Chapagain A, Traxer O (2022) Comparison of low power and high power holmium YAG laser settings in flexible ureteroscopy. World J Urol 40(7):1839–1844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04040-0
Comments (0)