About

Michael Eric Lipkin is the Vice Chair of Clinical Operations in the Duke Department of Urology at Duke University. He holds the position of Associate Professor of Urology and is also an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering. His primary responsibilities include overseeing clinical operations within the department, contributing to the education and training of residents and fellows, and supporting research initiatives. His work is integral to the department's mission of providing advanced urological care, training future specialists, and advancing research in urology. Located at 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, Dr. Lipkin's role emphasizes leadership in clinical management and academic excellence within the Duke Urology Department.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Optics
• Surgery
• Materials science
• Radiology
• Composite material
• Biomedical engineering
• Risk analysis (engineering)
• Internal medicine
• Physics
• Finance
• Geometry
• Nursing
• Mathematics
• Acoustics
• Medical physics
• Urology
• Medical emergency
• Emergency medicine
• Astrobiology

Selected publications

• Highlighting the 2025 AUA Nephrolithiasis Guidelines

  The Journal of Urology · 2026-01-30

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Enhanced light-matter interaction in nanofluid laser lithotripsy

  2026-03-04

  article

  Urinary stone disease is a benign but painful health condition that affects 11% of Americans in the US. It is commonly treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, which delivers a near-infrared pulsed laser beam to break down the kidney stone. Conventionally, the advances of laser lithotripsy hinge on laser optical engineering, which enables parameter space in power, pulse profile, and repetition frequency. Meanwhile, the absorption coefficient of the fluid near and inside the stone has never been considered a tunable parameter, despite its crucial role in stone ablation and thermal injury. In this talk, I will introduce our multidisciplinary team’s recent work, which utilizes a near-infrared-absorbing nanofluid to enhance the performance and functionality of clinical laser lithotripsy. By increasing the light-matter interaction, our in vitro and in vivo tests show that nanofluid can increase the stone ablation by several folds in a self-replenishing manner without incurring thermal dose or injury, holding great potential to shift the paradigm in laser lithotripsy.

  PublisherDOI

• Thermal injury and treatment efficiency during thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: insights from an in vivo porcine model

  World Journal of Urology · 2026-01-11 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Impact of Preoperative Silodosin on Ureteroscopy Outcomes for Ureterolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  International braz j urol · 2026-04-01

  articleOpen access

  PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of preoperative silodosin in improving ureteroscopy (URS) outcomes for ureterolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central were systematically searched for studies comparing preoperative silodosin with placebo or 'no preoperative silodosin' in patients undergoing URS for ureteral stones. Primary outcomes included ureteral wall injury, analgesia use, fever, haematuria, stone-free rate (SFR), operative time, and complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.7. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed per Cochrane guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies, including eight randomized clinical trials, including 960 patients were analysed; 450 (46.8%) received silodosin. Compared to controls, silodosin significantly reduced ureteral injuries (RR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18-0.49; p < 0.00001) and operative time (MD -17.72 minutes; 95% CI: -24.72 to -10.72; p < 0.00001). It also lowered analgesia needs (RR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16-0.75; p = 0.007), with trends toward reduced fever (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.36-1.22; p = 0.19) and haematuria (RR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.32-1.02; p = 0.06). In studies with ≥10 days of preoperative use, silodosin significantly improved SFR (RR 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10-1.26; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative silodosin reduces ureteral injuries, operative time, and complications, supporting its use to improve safety and efficiency of URS for ureterolithiasis.

  PublisherDOI

• IP06-03 A STANDARDIZED STONE PATHWAY IMPROVES PATIENT DISPOSITION AND UROLOGIC FOLLOW UP IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

  The Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08

  article
  PublisherDOI

• IP06-29 A 10-YEAR EVALUATION OF TIMING OF INFECTIONS FOLLOWING URETEROSCOPY FOR STONE TREATMENT IN A SINGLE INSTITUTION

  The Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08

  article
  PublisherDOI

• MP33-08 ENHANCING UROLOGY REFERRAL INTAKE THROUGH AI-ASSISTED PRE-CHARTING: A PILOT STUDY

  The Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Holmium and Thulium Fiber Lasers

  Urologic Clinics of North America · 2025-05-30

  reviewSenior authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Infection Risk in Patients with Mixed Flora in Urine Cultures Prior to Ureteroscopy

  Journal of Endourology · 2025-02-10 · 4 citations

  article

  Purpose: Urine cultures are routinely used to inform preoperative antibiotic choice and duration prior to endourologic surgery. The presence of mixed flora in preoperative urine cultures holds unclear clinical significance. This study examines infectious outcomes after ureteroscopy in patients with preoperative mixed flora urine cultures. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients who underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy between January 2014 and June 2024 who had urine cultures performed within 60 days preoperatively. Patients were categorized into cohorts based on their preoperative urine culture: mixed flora, negative, or positive. Postoperative urinary tract infection rates within 30 days were compared between cohorts, and logistic regression was performed adjusting for demographic and clinical variables. Results: We identified 5166 patients who underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (2139 mixed flora, 1525 negative, 1502 positive). Preoperative antibiotics were used more often in the mixed flora cohort (29%) than in the negative cohort (24%, p = 0.007) but less frequently than in the positive cohort (57%, p &lt; 0.001). Postoperative infections were visualized in 165 patients (8%) in the mixed flora cohort, compared with 88 (6%) in the negative cohort ( p = 0.067) and 237 (16%) in the positive cohort ( p &lt; 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that positive cultures were associated with an increased risk of infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49–2.55, p &lt; 0.001), but negative cultures had a similar risk of infection compared with mixed flora (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.56–1.11, p = 0.177). Within the mixed flora cohort, preoperative antibiotic treatment was not associated with decreased postoperative infection (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.66–1.47, p = 0.964). Conclusions: While patients with preoperative mixed flora urine cultures received preoperative antibiotics more often than patients with negative urine cultures, they were not at higher risk for postoperative infection. Routine preoperative antibiotic use in patients with mixed flora cultures may not be effective in reducing infectious complications after ureteroscopy.

  PublisherDOI

• Optimizing Fragmentation while Minimizing Thermal Injury Risk with the Thulium Fiber Laser in Ureteral Stone Lithotripsy: An In Vitro Study

  Journal of Endourology · 2025-05-10 · 2 citations

  articleSenior author

  Objective: To optimize thulium fiber laser (TFL) settings for effective stone fragmentation although minimizing thermal injury in confined ureteral spaces using a three-dimensional ureter model. Materials and Methods: A hydrogel-based ureter model was maintained at 37.2 ± 0.5°C, with a cylindrical BegoStone (10 × 10 mm, 1.00 ± 0.07 gm) occluding the ureter. Ureteroscopy was performed using a 150 µm TFL fiber for 3 minutes with room temperature irrigation and differing rates (0, 20, 40 mL/min) and power settings (6.4 to 20 W). Maximum sustained temperature (MST) and cumulative thermal dose (cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C) were assessed against a 120-minute safety threshold. We also evaluated the effects of ureter volume and irrigation temperature. Stone mass treated was calculated by subtracting the mass of residual fragments &gt;3 mm from the initial mass. Results: At 6.4 and 10 W, MSTs were below body temperature, and thermal doses were under 1 minute, indicating minimal thermal risk. At 20 W with 20 mL/min irrigation, MST exceeded 43°C within seconds, and thermal doses surpassed 120 minutes. Treatment efficiency was highest at 20 W (1.58 mg/s), followed by 10 W (1.15 mg/s) and 6.4 W (0.78 mg/s). Among 10 W settings, 1.0 J/10 Hz was more efficient than 2.0 J/5 Hz and 3.0 J/3 Hz. Safe settings produced 95.5% fine dust, whereas high-energy pulses 2–3 J produced significantly more fragments (1–3 mm) compared with settings with pulse energy 0.5–1.0 J. Increasing irrigation to 40 mL/min or using 15°C irrigation effectively reduced MST and improved efficiency, particularly at 20 W. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the risk of thermal injury with 20 W TFL treatment. Conversely, 10 W settings at 2.0 J/5 Hz are safe and effective for fragmentation. Future research will focus on validating these optimal settings for human stone treatment.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Glenn M. Preminger

  Duke Medical Center

  257 shared

• Charles D. Scales

  98 shared

• Michael N. Ferrandino

  Duke Medical Center

  96 shared

• Andreas Neisius

  68 shared

• Pei Zhong

  50 shared

• Daniel Wollin

  Brigham and Women's Hospital

  46 shared

• W. Neal Simmons

  Duke University

  42 shared

• Nicholas Kuntz

  Landstuhl Regional Medical Center

  41 shared