Ethical Statement: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The use of de-identified human stone samples for this in vitro study was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.
References
1.Andreeva V, Vinarov A, Yaroslavsky I, Kovalenko A, Vybornov A, Rapoport L, Enikeev D, Sorokin N, Dymov A, Tsarichenko D, Glybochko P, Fried N, Traxer O, Altshuler G, Gapontsev V (2020) Preclinical comparison of superpulse thulium fiber laser and a holmium: YAG laser for lithotripsy. World J Urol 38(2):497–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02785-9
2.Vejdani K, Eisner BH, Pengune W et al (2009) Effect of laser insult on devices used to prevent stone retropulsion during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol 23(4):705–707. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0390
3.Panthier F, Chicaud M, Doizi S et al (2024) How much energy do we need to ablate 1 cubic millimeter of stone during Thulium Fiber Laser lithotripsy? An in vitro study. World J Urol 42:57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04761-w
4.Sierra A, Ventimiglia E, Corrales M et al (2024) A historical comparison of thulium fiber laser systems for stone lithotripsy: navigating toward safe and effective parameters. World J Urol 42:145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04789-6
5.Gao X, Zhang HB, Zhang DK et al (2025) Efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic Ho:YAG lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones of different sizes and locations. J Clin Surg 33(5):523–526. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.20241701
6.Hein S, Petzold R, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Müller PF, Schoenthaler M, Miernik A (2019) Thermal effects of Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02808-5
7.Rico L, Blas L, Ramos LB et al (2025) Thulium Fiber Laser versus Vapor Tunnel HO:YAG laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery: which one has better laser ablation performance? World J Urol 43:472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05852-6
8.Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik Ø et al (2021) Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int 128(5):531–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15410
9.Xu LW, Yu CH, Hu HY et al (2023) Comparison of thulium fiber laser lithotripsy and Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones. Natl Med J China 103(30):2307–2313
10.Ahmad Para S, Saleem Wani M, Hamid A, Ahmad Malik S, Rouf Khawaja A, Mehdi S (2023) Incidence of Ureteric strictures Following Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: Holmium:YAG Versus Thulium Fiber Laser. Urol Res Pract 49(3):198–204 PMID: 37877870; PMCID: PMC10346094
11.Tang X, Wu S, Li Z et al (2024) Comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Urol 24:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-024-01419-6
12.Villani R, Liernur TD, Windisch OL et al (2025) With great power comes great risk: High ureteral stricture rate after high-power, high-frequency Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in ureteroscopy. World J Urol 43:232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05553-0
13.Hyams ES, Monga M, Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Semins MJ, Assimos DG et al A Prospective, Multi-Institutional Study of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones Smaller than 2 cm. Journal of Urology [Internet]. 2015 Jan 1 [cited 2025 Sep 10];193(1):165–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.002
14.Vogel A, Venugopalan V (2003) Mechanisms of pulsed laser ablation of biological tissues. Chem Rev 103(2):577–644. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr010379n
15.He X et al (2017) Thermal damage threshold of ureteral tissue during laser lithotripsy. Lasers Surg Med 49(5):471–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22625
16.Kraft L, Petzold R, Suarez-Ibarrola R et al (2022) In vitro fragmentation performance of a novel, pulsed Thulium solid-state laser compared to a Thulium fibre laser and standard Ho:YAG laser. Lasers Med Sci 37:2071–2078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-021-03495-8
17.Wollin DA et al (2021) In vivo porcine evaluation of ureteral thermal injury thresholds during laser lithotripsy. J Urol 206(2):396–404. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001776
18.Prosperetti A (1991) The thermal behaviour of oscillating gas bubbles. J Fluid Mech 222:587–616. 10.1017/S0022112091001234
19.Ohl Claus–Dieter, Thomas K, Reinhard G Lindau Olgert and Lauterborn Werner 1999Bubble dynamics, shock waves and sonoluminescencePhil. Trans R Soc A 357269–357294http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1999.0327
20.Peng Y, Liu M, Ming S, Yu W, Li L, Lu C, Fang Z, Wang Z, Dong H, Shen R, Xie F, Gao X, Gao X (2020) Safety of a novel thulium fiber laser for lithotripsy: an in vitro study on the thermal effect and its impact factor. J Endourol 34(1):88–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0426
21.He X et al (2023) An in vitro study of temperature variation of super-pulsed thulium fiber laser in ureter. J Mod Urol 28(11):993–997
22.Tonyali S, von Bargen MF, Ozkan A et al (2023) The heat is on: the impact of excessive temperature increments on complications of laser treatment for ureteral and renal stones. World J Urol 41:3853–3865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04652-0
23.Hardy LA, Wilson CR, Irby PB, Fried NM (2014) Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in an in vitro ureter model. J Biomed Opt 19(12):1280014
24.Dymov A, Glybochko P, Alyaev Y, Vinarov A, Altshuler G, Zamyatina V, Sorokin N, Enikeev D, Lekarev V, Proskura A et al (2017) Thulium lithotripsy: from experiment to clinical practice. J Urol 197(4):e1285
25.Li Z, Wu S, Liu T et al (2024) Optimal parameter settings of thulium fiber laser for ureteral stone lithotripsy: a comparative study in two different testing environments. Urolithiasis 52:78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01585-0