A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on The Association of Laser Lithotripsy Type (Holmium:YAG, Thulium Fiber) with In Vitro Stone Fragmentation Efficiency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58344/ihj.v5i3.965Keywords:
Urolithiasis, Lithotripsy, Laser, Holmium, YAG Laser, Thulium Fiber LaserAbstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantitatively synthesize existing in vitro evidence comparing the stone fragmentation efficiency of thulium fiber lasers (TFLs) and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) lasers. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, SpringerLink, and Wiley Online Library was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In vitro studies that quantitatively compared the stone fragmentation performance of TFL and Ho:YAG lasers were included. Data were extracted for more than 15 outcomes related to fragmentation efficiency, fragmentation quality, and safety. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each outcome. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk-of-bias tool adapted for in vitro studies. A total of 17 in vitro studies were included in the meta-analysis. TFL demonstrated statistically significant superiority across several key performance metrics. The pooled analysis revealed that TFL achieved a significantly higher stone ablation rate (MD: [value] mg/s, 95% CI [lower limit, upper limit]), required substantially less energy per unit of stone mass ablated, indicating greater ablation efficiency, and produced a higher proportion of fine stone dust particles (<0.5 mm). Furthermore, TFL was associated with significantly lower stone retropulsion forces (SMD: [value], 95% CI [lower limit, upper limit]) and a markedly lower stone ablation threshold (MD: [value] J/cm², 95% CI [lower limit, upper limit]). The superior fragmentation performance of TFL may be attributed to its fundamental optical and physical properties, particularly its wavelength of approximately 1,940 nm, which is close to a strong water absorption peak. This characteristic facilitates more efficient laser energy absorption and contributes to a lower stone ablation threshold.
References
Andreeva, V., et al. (2020). Mechanism of lithotripsy by superpulse thulium fiber laser and its clinical efficiency. Applied Sciences, 10(21), Article 7480.
Blackmon, R. L., Irby, P. B., & Fried, N. M. (2011). Comparison of holmium:YAG and thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: ablation thresholds, ablation rates, and retropulsion effects. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 16(7), Article 071403.
Buell, D., et al. (2022). Thulium versus holmium for in situ lower pole laser lithotripsy. The Canadian Journal of Urology, 29(6), 11371–11377.
Chew, B. H., et al. (2023). Comparing dusting and fragmenting efficiency using the new SuperPulsed thulium fiber laser versus a 120 W Holmium:YAG laser. Investigative and Clinical Urology, 64(3), 265–272.
Emiliani, E., et al. (2020). The laser of the future: Reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser—a systematic review. Translational Andrology and Urology, 9(S2), S232–S241.
Enikeev, D., et al. (2017). Comparison between the possibilities of holmium and thulium laser in lithotripsy in vitro. European Urology Supplements, 16(3), Article e391.
Gupta, A., et al. (2023). Comparative study of thulium fiber laser versus holmium laser for ureteric stone management with semi-rigid ureteroscopy: A prospective, single-center study. Asian Journal of Urology, 10(4), 368–375.
Hardy, L. A., et al. (2014). Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in an in vitro ureter model. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 19(12), Article 128001.
Hardy, L. A., et al. (2019). High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 51(6), 522–530.
Hooijmans, C. R., Rovers, M. M., de Vries, R. B. M., Leenaars, M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., & Langendam, M. W. (2014). SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
Kraft, L., 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. World Journal of Urology, 40(7), 1835–1841.
Lang, J., Narendrula, A., El-Zawahry, A., Sindhwani, P., & Ekwenna, O. (2022). Global trends in incidence and burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of global burden of disease study data. European Urology Open Science, 35, 37–46.
Lusch, A., et al. (2025). Application status of holmium and thulium fiber laser for endoscopic lithotripsy. Frontiers in Physics, 13, Article 1590456.
Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71.
Panthier, F., et al. (2021). Pulsed lasers and endocorporeal laser lithotripsy. Progrès en Urologie, 31(13), 789–799.
Petrov, A., et al. (2020). Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: a scoping review of a truly innovative technology. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 15(5), E298–E304.
Petzold, R., et al. (2021). Retropulsion force in laser lithotripsy—an in vitro study comparing a Holmium device to a novel pulsed solid-state Thulium laser. World Journal of Urology, 39(9), 3651–3656.
Proietti, S., et al. (2024). Assessment of holmium:YAG, pulsed-thulium:YAG and thulium fiber lasers for urinary stone ablation: In vitro study. Journal of Endourology. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0349
Ryan, J. R., et al. (2022). Ureteroscopy with thulium fiber laser lithotripsy results in shorter operating times and large cost savings. World Journal of Urology, 40(8), 2077–2082.
Sierra del Rio, A., et al. (2023a). Understanding the ablation rate of Holmium:YAG and thulium fiber lasers: Perspectives from an in vitro study. World Journal of Urology, 41(4), 1107–1114.
Sierra del Rio, A., et al. (2023b). Laser efficiency and laser safety: Holmium YAG vs. thulium fiber laser. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(1), Article 149.
Sierra del Rio, A., et al. (2024). Characterization of a novel pulsed-thulium:YAG laser for lithotripsy: Pulse analysis, fiber safety, and ablation volumes against holmium:YAG and thulium fiber lasers. Journal of Endourology.
Tang, X., et al. (2024). Comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Urology, 24(1), Article 49.
Taratkin, M., et al. (2021). Thulium fiber laser vs Ho:YAG in RIRS: a prospective randomized single-blinded trial. World Journal of Urology, 39(10), 3963–3969.
Traxer, O., & Keller, E. X. (2020). Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium:YAG laser. World Journal of Urology, 38(8), 1883–1894.
Tritanto, R., & Deswanto, I. (2023). Evaluating the clinical outcomes of thulium fiber laser (TFL) in comparison to holmium laser in the treatment of urinary tract stones – A systematic review. F1000Research, 12, Article 752.
Uzan, E., et al. (2022). Fiber fracture risk during laser lithotripsy: A comparative in vitro study between Thulium Fiber Laser and Holmium:YAG laser. Journal of Endourology, 36(S1), A1-A2.
Welte, M. N., et al. (2021). In vitro dusting performance of a new solid state thulium laser compared to holmium laser lithotripsy. Journal of Endourology, 35(2), 221–225.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Reza Wahyudi, Andi Rizaldi, Muhammad Al Abrar, Dea Nabila Zulkia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

