Rethinking high-frequency lithotripsy: a review by EAU endourology group.
World J UrolSep 22, 2026 (epub)
Anil Shrestha, Akash Chitrakar, Jia-Lun Kwok et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review evaluated high-frequency (HF) versus low-frequency (LF) laser lithotripsy in 2,059 patients undergoing ureteroscopy for renal and ureteral stones. Both HF and LF settings achieved comparable stone-free rates (SFR) ranging from 67-100% for LF and 77-100% for HF. The review highlights the safety profiles and operative outcomes associated with each frequency.
Key findings
- Stone-free rates were similar: LF 67-100% vs HF 77-100%.
- Operative times ranged from 24.7 to 96.6 min for LF and 19.9-90 min for HF.
- Infectious complications with HF, HP settings showed UTI/sepsis rates up to 2.9% in large stones.
- Bleeding complications were more associated with laser technology than frequency settings.
Why it matters
Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of HF and LF laser lithotripsy can guide clinicians in selecting appropriate treatment modalities for patients with renal and ureteral stones, potentially improving patient outcomes.