Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients in the meta-analysis

From: Comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a Meta-analysis and systematic review

Study

Study design

Country

Location

Ureteroscope

Treatment regimen

No. of patients

Male/ female

Age (mean ± SD, years)

Left/

Right

Mean diameter (mean ± SD, mm)

Mean Volume (mean ± SD, mm3)

Stone density (mean ± SD, HU)

Laser setting

MOSES technique

Dusting technique

Follow-up time (months)

NOS score

Jadad score

Huo YF 2020 [27]

non-RCT

China

Ureter

rigid ureteroscope

TFL

56

40/16

42.6±4.1

30/26

11±5

NA

NA

NA

N

N

12

7

NA

Ho: YAG

46

35/11

41.3 ± 4.5

25/21

12 ± 4

NA

NA

NA

Martov A G 2020 [23]

RCT

India

Ureter

semi-rigid ureteroscope

TFL

87

50/37

48.1 ± 5.2

45/42

12.2 ± 0.1

NA

1001 ± 266

1 J, 10 Hz

N

N

1

NA

2

Ho: YAG

87

48/39

46.4 ± 4.3

43/44

11.3 ± 0.1

NA

994 ± 214

1 J, 10 Hz

Popov S V 2020 [33]

non-RCT

Russia

Ureter

semi-rigid ureteroscope

TFL

60

24/26

51 ± 8

NA

8.1 ± 1.8

NA

1231 ± 192

0.8 J, 10 Hz

N

N

NA

7

NA

Ho: YAG

50

30/30

51 ± 8

NA

8.3 ± 1.5

NA

0.8 J, 10 Hz

Ghazi A 2021 [31]

non-RCT

USA

Kidney

NA

TFL

31

NA

56.13 ± 13.32

NA

NA

1150.8 ± 2254.8

1045.1 ± 109.19

0.4 J, 60 Hz

N

Y

1

6

NA

Ho: YAG

31

NA

54.85 ± 12.09

NA

NA

1088.9 ± 1612.9

803.25 ± 302.6

0.4 J, 60 Hz

Azilgareeva C 2022 [21]

RCT

Russia

Kidney/Ureter

flexible ureteroscope

TFL

29

NA

52 ± 14.1

NA

11.5 ± 3.3

322.0 ± 249.4a

1163.0 ± 367.1

NA

N

N

3

NA

2

Ho: YAG

25

NA

55.4 ± 14.3

NA

12.4 ± 4.1

508.9 ± 248.2a

1124.0 ± 329.0

NA

Bogdan G 2022 [28]

non-RCT

Romania

Kidney

flexible ureteroscope

TFL

59

32/27

48.94 ± 15.93

18/41

13.25 ± 4.74

NA

1045.1 ± 109.19

0.5 J, 30 Hz

Y

Y

3

9

NA

Ho: YAG

187

105/82

47.51 ± 14.72

79/108

13.05 ± 3.27

NA

1020.45 ± 110.85

0.4 J, 80 Hz

James R 2022 [24]

non-RCT

USA

Kidney/Ureter

NA

TFL

51

25/26

NA

NA

8.28 ± 3.75

NA

NA

NA

N

N

NA

7

NA

Ho: YAG

51

31/20

NA

NA

8.56 ± 2.29

NA

NA

NA

Singh A 2022 [25]

RCT

India

Kidney/Ureter

NA

TFL

30

NA

46.63 ± 13.73

11/18

NA

601.65 ± 673.08

1043.07 ± 290.4

0.05-1 J, 50-300HZ

N

N

1

NA

1

Ho: YAG

30

NA

50.31 ± 13.24

19/11

NA

247.91 ± 227.01

1013.23 ± 328.1

0.2-2 J, 10-40HZ

Oyvind U 2022 [26]

RCT

Norway

Kidney/Ureter

flexible/semi-rigid ureteroscope

TFL

60

38/22

53 ± 22.24

37/23

11.4 ± 6.12a

NA

896 ± 486.7a

0.4 J, 6 Hz

N

Y

3

NA

5

Ho: YAG

60

39/21

55.18 ± 14.23

34/26

12.9 ± 8.38a

NA

911 ± 429.6a

0.4 J, 6 Hz

Ankit G 2023 [22]

RCT

India

Ureter

semi-rigid ureteroscope

TFL

40

25/15

44.93 ± 14.11

NA

NA

282.45 ± 139.79

1135.3 ± 317.04

0.8-1 J, 10-12HZ

N

N

1

NA

3

Ho: YAG

40

32/8

47.72 ± 12.88

NA

NA

279.49 ± 312.52

1131.75 ± 283.03

0.8-1 J, 10-12HZ

Bertrand D 2023 [32]

non-RCT

France

Kidney/Ureter

flexible/rigid ureteroscope

TFL

100

43/57

60.1 ± 17.7

NA

14.6 ± 8.8

NA

NA

NA

N

N

3

7

NA

Ho: YAG

76

43/33

57 ± 18.2

NA

11.6 ± 5.6

NA

NA

NA

Castellani D 2023 [30]

non-RCT

Global

kidney

flexible ureteroscope

TFL

284

183/101

53.15 ± 15.04

NA

12.31 ± 5.02

NA

1146.67 ± 261.59

NA

N

Y

3

9

NA

Ho: YAG

284

183/101

56.29 ± 14.80

NA

13.14 ± 5.87

NA

1141.91 ± 425.89

NA

Christopher R H 2023 [29]

RCT

USA

Kidney/Ureter

flexible/semi-rigid ureteroscope

TFL

56

26/30

59 ± 12.6a

NA

8.9 ± 3.8a

288 ± 217.8a

NA

0.8 J, 8 Hz

Y

N

2

NA

3

Ho: YAG

52

31/21

61 ± 11.1a

NA

8.4 ± 4.4a

319 ± 342.2a

NA

0.8 J, 8 Hz

  1. RCT randomized controlled trial, SD standard deviation, NA not available, NR not reported, NOS Newcastle–Ottawa score, Y yes, N no
  2. amean and standard deviation were converted from median and quartile of reported continuous variables