. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 18.

Published in final edited form as: BJU Int. 2023 Nov 27;133(2):223–230. doi: 10.1111/bju.16218

Table 2:

Comparison between treatment outcomes for different TFL settings at high energy/ low frequency combination with low energy/high frequency for COM stone

Treatment outcomes	E_p = 0.2 J, F = 50 Hz	E_p = 0.8 J, F = 12 Hz	p-value	Observations (0.8 J/12 Hz)
	Median [Interquartile range, IQR] (n = 4)
Initial stone mass (mq)	245 [IQR (233–260)]	274 [IQR (256–290)]	0.30	Comparable
Procedure time (S)	322 [IQR (282–360)]	205 [IQR (187–222)]	<0.01	36 % less
Laser-on time [Ablation time] (S)	210 [IQR (190–247)]	170 [IQR (151–186)]	0.10	21 % less
Fraqment mass / Initial mass (%)	37 [IQR (35–40)]	24 [IQR (21–26)]	0.001	35 % less fraqments
Treatment efficiency (mq/s)	0.49 [IQR (0.46–0.54)]	0.98 [IQR (0.96–1.05)]	<0.001	2.03 times faster
Laser enerqy efficiency (J/mq)	13.91 [IQR (12.70–16.54)]	8.44 [IQR (7.89–8.55)]	0.001	0.61 times less enerqy expenditure
Average thermal dose [CEM43°C]	4.21 [IQR (0.23–8.43)]	0.063 [IQR (0.056–0.803)]	0.237	Thermally safe