Scholarlink

<p>Purpose. To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 laser enucleation performed at an academic center with trainee involvement. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed men undergoing HoLEP between June 2022 and May 2024. Patients were grouped by laser platform: standard holmium, Moses 1.0, or Moses 2.0. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes up to six months were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results. Among 389 patients (standard holmium 206; Moses 1.0 126; Moses 2.0 57), baseline characteristics were similar. Median operative times were 95, 105, and 100 min for standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0, respectively (p = 0.25), and median prostate weights were comparable (84 g, 85 g, 79 g; p = 0.44). Hospital stay was slightly longer with Moses lasers (1.6 vs. 1.4 days, p &lt; 0.001), though this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant. Objective measures of bleeding—postoperative hemoglobin drop (1.7–2.0 g/dL) and transfusion rates (0–1.6%)—did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative catheter duration, hospital stay, and complication rates were also comparable. Functional outcomes improved in all groups through 6 months, with no intergroup differences. Conclusion. HoLEP is safe and effective across conventional holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 platforms, with comparable perioperative and functional outcomes. Although the literature suggests that Moses 2.0 may facilitate same-day discharge, its absence should not limit HoLEP availability, and platform selection may reasonably reflect institutional resources and surgeon preference.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of pulse modulation technology on operating room time and blood loss in HoLEP: real-world data from an academic center

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月29日

查看全文
  • Juanita Velasquez-Ospina,
  • Sabika Sadiq,
  • Ansh Bhatia,
  • Haşim Bakbak,
  • Ahmad Abdelaziz,
  • Gurpremjit Singh,
  • Archan Khandekar,
  • Jonathan Katz,
  • Robert Marcovich,
  • Hemendra N. Shah

摘要

Purpose. To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 laser enucleation performed at an academic center with trainee involvement. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed men undergoing HoLEP between June 2022 and May 2024. Patients were grouped by laser platform: standard holmium, Moses 1.0, or Moses 2.0. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes up to six months were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results. Among 389 patients (standard holmium 206; Moses 1.0 126; Moses 2.0 57), baseline characteristics were similar. Median operative times were 95, 105, and 100 min for standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0, respectively (p = 0.25), and median prostate weights were comparable (84 g, 85 g, 79 g; p = 0.44). Hospital stay was slightly longer with Moses lasers (1.6 vs. 1.4 days, p < 0.001), though this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant. Objective measures of bleeding—postoperative hemoglobin drop (1.7–2.0 g/dL) and transfusion rates (0–1.6%)—did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative catheter duration, hospital stay, and complication rates were also comparable. Functional outcomes improved in all groups through 6 months, with no intergroup differences. Conclusion. HoLEP is safe and effective across conventional holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 platforms, with comparable perioperative and functional outcomes. Although the literature suggests that Moses 2.0 may facilitate same-day discharge, its absence should not limit HoLEP availability, and platform selection may reasonably reflect institutional resources and surgeon preference.