Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 1/2024

01-12-2024 | Laser | Research

Analyzing global research trends and focal points in the utilization of laser techniques for the treatment of urolithiasis from 1978 to 2022: visualization and bibliometric analysis

Authors: Faris Abushamma, Sa’ed H. Zyoud

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Laser lithotripsy is gaining global prominence and is a dynamically progressing field marked by a continual influx of new and comprehensive research each year. Recently, there has been a noticeable shift toward the adoption of various kinds of lasers, such as holmium: yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) and thulium fiber (TFL) lasers. Consequently, we aim to conduct a bibliometric analysis to analyze key areas of research activity within scientific publications that center on the utilization of laser techniques in urolithiasis. A search of the literature spanning from 1978 to 2022 was carried out on 25 December 2023 using the Scopus database to explore research related to the application of laser techniques for urolithiasis treatment. Visualization analysis was performed using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). We examined 962 publications that met the specified criteria, 791 (82.22%) of which were original articles. The analysis of the retrieved publications indicated a consistent increase in research output from 1978 to 2022; a particularly noteworthy surge occurred after 2003. In particular, the U.S. claimed the leading position as the most productive country, contributing 211 articles (21.93%). However, India had the highest research productivity according to the adjustment index of 19.08. In the European region, 324 publications (33.68% of the total) originated from 25 countries. The Journal of Endourology contributed the most between 1978 and 2022 (n = 96, 9.98%). The most cited paper examined the effectiveness of holmium: yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) lasers, while a subsequent study focused on the use of a thulium fiber laser (TFL), an emerging laser technology that has gained increased recognition. Co-occurrence analysis revealed three distinct clusters focusing on the types of laser technology, minimally invasive approaches, and success rate/postoperative complications. This comprehensive investigation delves into the global landscape of laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis. This review supports the emerging clinical concept of using various types of laser technology for urolithiasis treatment. Moreover, the hot issues that researchers should focus on based on the findings of this study are the use of different types of laser lithotripsy in view of the surgical approach, success rate and complications.
Literature
1.
De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M et al (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137PubMedCrossRef
2.
Dorantes-Carrillo LA, Basulto-Martínez M, Suárez-Ibarrola R, Heinze A, Proietti S, Flores-Tapia JP, Esqueda-Mendoza A, Giusti G (2022) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones >1cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Urol Focus 8(1):259–270PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, Gao X, Peng Y, Xu C, Chen Q, Song R, Sun Y (2015) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol 29(7):745–759PubMedCrossRef
4.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: american urological association/endourological society guideline. PART I J Urol 196(4):1153–1160PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zeng G, Cai C, Duan X, Xu X, Mao H, Li X, Nie Y, Xie J, Li J, Lu J et al (2021) Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a noninferior modality to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 20–40mm renal calculi: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 79(1):114–121PubMedCrossRef
6.
Wu T, Duan X, Chen S, Yang X, Tang T, Cui S (2017) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 99(3):308–319PubMedCrossRef
7.
Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39(3):185–188PubMedCrossRef
8.
Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B, Biyani CS, Rukin NJ, Somani BK (2015) Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (ursl) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep 16(8):54PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM (2008) Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol 22(2):257–260PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kronenberg P, Hameed BZ, Somani B (2021) Outcomes of thulium fibre laser for treatment of urinary tract stones: results of a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 31(2):80–86PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C (2022) Thulium fibre laser versus holmium:yag for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 82(1):73–79PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hardy LA, Vinnichenko V, Fried NM (2019) High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers Surg Med 51(6):522–530PubMedCrossRef
14.
Jiang P, Okhunov Z, Afyouni AS, Ali S, Hosseini Sharifi SH, Bhatt R, Brevik A, Ayad M, Larson K, Osann K et al (2023) Comparison of superpulse thulium fiber laser vs holmium laser for ablation of renal calculi in an in vivo porcine model. J Endourol 37(3):335–340PubMedCrossRef
15.
Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, Nie H, Duan G (2018) Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis 46(2):197–202PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20(3):179–185PubMedCrossRef
18.
Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Cutone B, Chew BH (2021) Risk factors for urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Endourol 35(7):991–1000PubMedCrossRef
19.
Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158PubMedCrossRef
20.
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556PubMedCrossRef
21.
Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Geraghty R, Skolarikos A, Papatsoris A, Liatsikos E, Somani BK (2017) Trends of “urolithiasis: interventions, simulation, and laser technology” over the last 16 years (2000–2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review from European section of Uro-technology (ESUT). World J Urol 35(11):1651–1658PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Jones P, Rangarajan K, Aboumarzouk O, Giusti G, Somani BK (2017) Trends of intervention for paediatric stone disease over the last two decades (2000–2015): a systematic review of literature. Arab J Urol 15(4):306–311PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
24.
Montazeri A, Mohammadi S (2023) P MH, Ghaemi M, Riazi H, Sheikhi-Mobarakeh Z: Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements. Syst Rev 12(1):239PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Thompson DF, Walker CK (2015) A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy 35(6):551–559PubMedCrossRef
26.
Morante-Carballo F, Montalván-Burbano N, Quiñonez-Barzola X, Jaya-Montalvo M, Carrión-Mero P (2022) What do we know about water scarcity in semi-arid zones? a global analysis and research trends. Water 14(17):2685CrossRef
27.
Guo K, Li J, Li X, Huang J, Zhou Z (2023) Emerging trends and focus on the link between gut microbiota and type 1 diabetes: a bibliometric and visualization analysis. Front Microbiol 14:1137595PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Al-Jabi SW (2021) Current global research landscape on COVID-19 and depressive disorders: bibliometric and visualization analysis. World J Psychiatry 11(6):253–264PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Al-Jabi SW (2017) Global trends in aspirin resistance-related research from 1990 to 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 121(6):512–519PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Yang J, Wu J, Han T, Lu H, Li F, Li L, Su S, Jiang P, Hou Z (2023) Global research hotspots and frontiers of myasthenia gravis from 2002 to 2021: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore) 102(24):e34002PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Heilmann C, Blümle A (2015) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: black boxes of medical literature? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 48(6):807–808PubMed
34.
Møller AM, Myles PS (2016) What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? Br J Anaesth 117(4):428–430PubMedCrossRef
35.
Neely JG, Magit AE, Rich JT, Voelker CC, Wang EW, Paniello RC, Nussenbaum B, Bradley JP (2010) A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142(1):6–14PubMedCrossRef
36.
O’Gorman CS, Macken AP, Cullen W, Saunders J, Dunne C, Higgins MF (2013) What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? and why is a systematic review considered to be so good? Ir Med J 106(2 Suppl):8–10PubMed
37.
Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D (2016) An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 13(2):118–123PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K et al (2016) A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:15PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26(2):91–108PubMedCrossRef
40.
Wallin JA (2005) Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97(5):261–275PubMedCrossRef
41.
Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of pubmed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–342PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Anker MS, Hadzibegovic S, Lena A, Haverkamp W (2019) The difference in referencing in web of science, scopus, and google Scholar. ESC Heart Fail 6(6):1291–1312PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
45.
Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096PubMedCrossRef
46.
Abedi AR, Razzaghi M, Montazeri S, Allameh F (2021) The trends of urolithiasis therapeutic interventions over the last 20 years: a bibliographic study. J Lasers Med Sci 12:e14PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Yuan T, Xia Y, Li B, Yu W, Rao T, Ye Z, Yan X, Song B, Li L, Lin F et al (2023) Gut microbiota in patients with kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Microbiol 23(1):143PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Aune D, Mahamat-Saleh Y, Norat T, Riboli E (2018) Body fatness, diabetes, physical activity and risk of kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol 33(11):1033–1047PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Carbone A, Al Salhi Y, Tasca A, Palleschi G, Fuschi A, De Nunzio C, Bozzini G, Mazzaferro S, Pastore AL (2018) Obesity and kidney stone disease: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol 70(4):393–400PubMedCrossRef
50.
Thongprayoon C, Cheungpasitporn W, Vijayvargiya P, Anthanont P, Erickson SB (2016) The risk of kidney stones following bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ren Fail 38(3):424–430PubMedCrossRef
51.
Zhao J, Huang Y, Yu X (2022) Caffeine intake and the risk of incident kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 54(10):2457–2466PubMedCrossRef
52.
53.
Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Ghani KR (2019) Emerging laser techniques for the management of stones. Urol Clin North Am 46(2):193–205PubMedCrossRef
54.
55.
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538PubMedCrossRef
56.
57.
Trinarningsih W, Anugerah AR, Muttaqin PS (2021) Visualizing and mapping two decades of literature on board of directors research: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2021. Cogent Bus Manag 8(1):1994104CrossRef
58.
Sweileh WM (2022) Bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research publications in pharmacy practice journals. J Pharm Health Serv Res 13(3):198–207CrossRef
59.
Zyoud SH, Waring WS, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM (2017) Global cocaine intoxication research trends during 1975–2015: a bibliometric analysis of web of science publications. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 12(1):6PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Karasneh RA, Al-Azzam SI, Alzoubi KH, Hawamdeh SS, Sweileh WM (2022) Global research trends of health-related publications on ramadan fasting from 1999 to 2021: a bibliometric analysis. J Relig Health 61(5):3777–3794PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
62.
Sweileh WM (2022) Global research activity on mathematical modeling of transmission and control of 23 selected infectious disease outbreak. Global Health 18(1):4PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
64.
65.
Zyoud SH (2024) Mapping the landscape of research on insulin resistance: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Health Popul Nutr 43(1):6PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
67.
Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Abu-Taha A, Hussein A, Al-Jabi SW (2013) Medical and biomedical research productivity from Palestine, 2002–2011. BMC Res Notes 6:41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM (2015) Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol 34(1):12–23PubMedCrossRef
69.
Chan KF, Vassar GJ, Pfefer TJ, Teichman JM, Glickman RD, Weintraub ST, Welch AJ (1999) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: a dominant photothermal ablative mechanism with chemical decomposition of urinary calculi. Lasers Surg Med 25(1):22–37PubMedCrossRef
70.
71.
Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1583–1588PubMedCrossRef
72.
Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M (2002) Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 167(5):1972–1976PubMedCrossRef
73.
74.
Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, Razvi H, Stravodimos KG, Parikh K, Kural AR, de la Rosette JJ (2014) Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 66(1):102–109PubMedCrossRef
75.
Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD (2002) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167(1):31–34PubMedCrossRef
76.
Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH (1999) Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques. Urology 53(1):25–31PubMedCrossRef
77.
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):1883–1894PubMedCrossRef
78.
Watson G, Murray S, Dretler SP, Parrish JA (1987) The pulsed dye laser for fragmenting urinary calculi. J Urol 138(1):195–198PubMedCrossRef
79.
Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112(3):355–361PubMedCrossRef
80.
Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2015) Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol 33(4):463–469PubMedCrossRef
81.
Tzelves L, Somani B, Berdempes M, Markopoulos T, Skolarikos A (2021) Basic and advanced technological evolution of laser lithotripsy over the past decade: an educational review by the European Society of Urotechnology Section of the European Association of Urology. Turk J Urol 47(3):183–192PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
82.
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-s417PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
83.
84.
Kronenberg P, Cerrato C, Juliebø-Jones P, Herrmann T, Tokas T, Somani BK (2023) Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review. World J Urol 41(12):3817–3827PubMedCrossRef
85.
86.
87.
Philipson L (2005) Medical research activities, funding, and creativity in Europe: comparison with research in the United States. JAMA 294(11):1394–1398PubMedCrossRef
88.
Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD, Hunt N (2005) Medical research–state of the science. JAMA 294(11):1424–1425PubMedCrossRef
89.
90.
91.
Hill WG (2015) New impetus for innovation in benign urology. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 308(8):F797-798PubMedCrossRef
92.
93.
Zerhouni EA (2005) US biomedical research: basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA 294(11):1352–1358PubMedCrossRef
94.
Zerhouni EA (2007) Translational research: moving discovery to practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81(1):126–128PubMedCrossRef
95.
Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y (2017) Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 35(9):1301–1320PubMedCrossRef
96.
Borghi L, Ferretti PP, Elia GF, Amato F, Melloni E, Trapassi MR, Novarini A (1990) Epidemiological study of urinary tract stones in a northern Italian city. Br J Urol 65(3):231–235PubMedCrossRef
97.
98.
Wang Q, Wang Y, Yang C, Wang J, Shi Y, Wang H, Zhang L, Zhao M-H (2023) Trends of urolithiasis in china: a national study based on hospitalized patients from 2013 to 2018. Kidney Diseases 9(1):49–57PubMedCrossRef
99.
Jiang Y, Zhang J, Kang N, Niu Y, Li Z, Yu C, Zhang J (2021) Current trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy in china: a spot Survey. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 14:2507–2515PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
100.
Lu P, Chen K, Wang Z, Song R, Zhang J, Liu B, Zeng G, Wang Z, Zhang W, Gu M (2020) Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using 365 μm holmium laser for nephrolithiasis: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. World J Urol 38(2):481–487PubMedCrossRef
101.
Tangal S, Sancı A, Baklacı U, Babayiğit M, Karaburun MC, Kubilay E, Gökce M (2020) What is the optimum lithotripsy method for high density stones during mini-PNL? laser, ballistic or combination of both. Lasers Med Sci 35(8):1765–1768PubMedCrossRef
102.
103.
Nagele U, Tokas T, Traxer O (2020) Future of kidney stone surgery: will we treat small stones with large-sized PCNL and big stones with RIRS? World J Urol 38(12):3291–3292PubMedCrossRef
104.
105.
106.
Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Ozkuvanci U, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY (2010) Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures? J Endourol 24(12):1929–1934PubMedCrossRef
107.
Ganesamoni R, Sabnis RB, Mishra S, Parekh N, Ganpule A, Vyas JB, Jagtap J, Desai M (2013) Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laser lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. J Endourol 27(12):1444–1449PubMedCrossRef
108.
Mak DK, Smith Y, Buchholz N, El-Husseiny T (2016) What is better in percutaneous nephrolithotomy–prone or supine? a systematic review. Arab J Urol 14(2):101–107PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
109.
110.
111.
Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L, Somani BK (2019) Role of “dusting and pop-dusting” using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥ 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months. Urolithiasis 47(4):391–394PubMedCrossRef
112.
Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, Lange D, Lipkin M, Miller NL, Monga M et al (2018) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol 32(1):1–6PubMedCrossRef
113.
Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA (2021) Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol 35(6):795–800PubMedCrossRef
114.
Enikeev D, Herrmann TRW, Taratkin M, Azilgareeva C, Borodina A, Traxer O (2023) Thulium fiber laser in endourology: current clinical evidence. Curr Opin Urol 33(2):95–107PubMedCrossRef
115.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS et al (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52(6):1610–1631PubMedCrossRef
116.
Grosso AA, Sessa F, Campi R, Viola L, Polverino P, Crisci A, Salvi M, Liatsikos E, Feu OA, Dim F et al (2021) Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nephrol 73(3):309–332PubMedCrossRef
117.
Liu M, Chen J, Gao M, Zeng H, Cui Y, Zhu Z, Chen H (2021) Preoperative midstream urine cultures vs renal pelvic urine culture or stone culture in predicting systemic inflammatory response syndrome and urosepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 35(10):1467–1478PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Analyzing global research trends and focal points in the utilization of laser techniques for the treatment of urolithiasis from 1978 to 2022: visualization and bibliometric analysis
Authors
Faris Abushamma
Sa’ed H. Zyoud
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01568-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Urolithiasis 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Comparison of ureteral stone measurements for predicting the efficacy of a single session of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: one-, two-, and three-dimensional computed tomography measurements

Research

Clinical features and mutational spectrum of Chinese patients with primary hyperoxaluria type 2

REVIEW

Flank versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Research

Urgent ureterorenoscopy as a primary treatment for ureteral stone: why not?

Research

A randomized controlled trial comparing infectious complications using mini perc with and without suction for renal stones less than 3 cm in size

Research

Antioxidant activity and Inhibitory effects of Cydonia oblonga Miller. leaves extracts against calcium oxalate stones