Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial

Amihay Nevo, Kassem S. Faraj, Scott M. Cheney, Jonathan P. Moore, Karen L. Stern, Michael Borofsky, Ehud Gnessin, Mitchell R. Humphreys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non-Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Patients and Methods: A double-blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non-Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. Results: A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non-Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non-Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. Conclusion: Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non-Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)553-559
Number of pages7
JournalBJU International
Volume127
Issue number5
Early online dateOct 7 2020
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International

Keywords

  • #UroBPH
  • #Urology
  • benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • holmium laser enucleation of the prostate
  • laser

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this