Comparison of Moses laser and Raykeen laser in patients with impacted upper ureteral stone undergoing flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy.

BACKGROUND: To compare the operative effect and clinical efficacy of the Moses laser mode and the Raykeen holmium laser energy platform powder mode under flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in patients with impacted upper ureteral stones. METHODS: From March 2022 to September 2022, 72 patients were divided into a Moses laser group and a Raykeen laser group according to surgical method, with 36 patients in each group. CT and ureteroscopy confirmed that all patients had isolated impacted upper ureteral stones. The stone volume (mm3), stone density (Hu) and severity of hydronephrosis were measured by CT. Postoperative complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo score. RESULTS: There were no complications of ureteral stenosis related to the laser treatment. The operative time and lithotripsy time were lower in the Moses laser group than in the Raykeen laser group (P < 0.05). The stone-free survival rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.722). Stone volume was found to be positively correlated with laser energy and lithotripsy time in both groups (P < 0.01). There was no significant correlation between laser energy and lithotripsy time or ureteral stone density (Hu) in the Moses laser group (P > 0.05) or the Raykeen laser group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The contact mode of Moses technology and the powder mode of Raykeen laser lithotripsy can be used for the ablation of a single impacted upper ureteral stone. The ablation speed was related to the stone volume and the severity of polyp hyperplasia, not the stone density. We recommend the use of the powdered mode as a therapeutic measure for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

Outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation using a 60 W MOSES laser: a 3-year prospective study from a University Teaching Hospital.

Introduction: Modulated optics enhancement system (MOSES) holmium lasers use "pulse modulation" to increase the efficacy of laser lithotripsy. As the clinical evidence on the efficacy of 60 W holmium laser with MOSES technology is scarce, we analyzed the outcomes of patients treated with this laser at our institution. Methods: A total of 96 consecutive patients with urinary stones (72 renal stones and 24 ureteral stones) were treated with the 60 W MOSES laser from 2019 until 2022 and were included in our analysis. Patient data and outcomes were prospectively collected, and analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, as well as stone-free rate, operating time, length of stay, and perioperative and postoperative complications. Results: With a median age of 55 (IQR: 35-69.25) years, the male:female ratio was 53:43. The median stone size was 12 mm (IQR: 7-19), with a mean number of urinary stones of 1.82 (SD ± 1.4). While 36 (35%) patients were pre-stented, a ureteral access sheath was inserted in 36 (37.5%) patients. The median operative time was 44 min (IQR: 22.5-59.5), and 63 (65.5%) patients received postoperative stenting. Perioperative complications (all Clavien ⩽ II complications) were observed in 5 (5.2%) patients (four urinary tract infections and one acute urinary retention), and after the first procedure, 90 (93.8%) patients were stone-free. The median length of hospital stay was 1 day (IQR: 1-1). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the 60 W MOSES laser was safe and efficient for the treatment of urinary stones with high stone-free rates and a small risk of minor complications. More studies with larger cohorts are necessary in the future to confirm our results.

Comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation between Holmium: YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technology: a prospective single-center propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings.

Background: In vitro studies have shown that the holmium Modulated Optics Enhancement Systems (MOSES) technology can lead to an increase in the efficacy of lithotripsy and a reduction of retropulsion, but clinical evidence comparing it to non-MOSES technology is still scarce. We did a comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) between Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technologies. Methods: Patient data and outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Patients undergoing URSL with standard holmium laser without MOSES technology (Group 1) were compared to holmium laser with MOSES (Group 2) using the same clinical laser settings (0.4-1 J, 20-40 Hz) with dusting and pop-dusting technique. The independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-squared test were used, with a p-value of < 0.05 as significant. Given the different sizes of the cohorts, we performed a propensity score 1:1 matched analysis. Results: A total of 206 patients (1:1 matched) with a male:female ratio of 94:112 and a median age of 56 (range: 39-68) years were analyzed. Groups 1 and 2 were matched for ureteric stones (27.7% and 22.3%, p = 0.42), pre-stenting (37% and 35%, p = 0.66), the mean number of stones (1.76 ± 1.3) and (1.82 ± 1.4, p = 0.73), and ureteral access sheath use (37% and 35%, p = 0.77) respectively.While there was no significant statistical difference in clinical outcomes, the stone size was slightly larger in Group 2, 14.8 ± 10.8 mm vs 11.7 ± 8.0 mm, for a lower operative time 42.7 ± 30.6 min versus 48.5 ± 25 min, lower perioperative complication rates 3.9% versus 4.9% and a higher stone-free rate 90.3% versus 87.4%. Conclusion: While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for the treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high-quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes.

We compare the outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL), using Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES vs Non-MOSES technology: It is a prospective single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings It is a single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings. While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes.

Comparison of conventional (basketing + dusting) and Moses (pop-dusting) holmium lasers during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones between 2 and 3 cm: a randomized clinical trial.

To investigate the feasibility of conventional (basketing + dusting) and Moses (pop-dusting) holmium lasers during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the treatment of 2-3 cm renal calculi and to compare the efficiency and safety of the two methods, a total of 230 patients with 2-3 cm kidney stones who underwent FURS were randomly divided into the conventional group and the Moses group. The mode of lithotripsy in the conventional group was fragmentation and dusting. The mode of lithotripsy in the Moses group was dusting and pop-dusting. Clinical and perioperative variables and complications were compared between the two cohorts. Multivariate analyses of factors contributing to the stone-free rate (SFR) and operation time were performed. No statistically significant differences were found in the demographics, renal stone-related data, SFR, or complications between the cohorts. The laser energy was higher in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (119.3 ± 15.2 vs. 92.8 ± 15.1 kJ; P < 0.001), and the operation time was shorter in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (99.5 ± 18.9 vs. 105.3 ± 13.7 min; P = 0.009). When there was isolated stone, the operation time was shorter in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (99.6 ± 17.5 vs. 111.4 ± 10.7 min; P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the two cohorts when there were multiple stones (99.5 ± 20 vs. 101.2 ± 14 min; P = 0.415). Multivariate analyses found that an increase in stone volume can decrease the SFR and prolong the operation time, and use of a Moses laser can shorten the operation time. Both holmium laser modes during FURS can effectively treat 2-3 cm renal calculi. The Moses mode is recommended as the first choice for the treatment of isolated 2-3 cm renal stones. When treating multiple stones, the efficiency of these two laser modalities is the same. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2200056091.

Assessment of stone ablation rate using the Moses technology modes with different energy and pulse settings: An experimental study.

Objectives: To compare lithotripsy ablation rate with the Moses modes versus conventional pulse modes when using the Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser. Methods: The Lumenis® Pulse P120H Holmium Laser System and a 365 µm Moses D/F/L fiber were used to assess stone ablation rate in conventional Short and Long Pulse as well as Moses Contact and Distance at 10 W (0.5Jx20Hz and 2Jx5Hz) and 60 W (1Jx60Hz and 2Jx30Hz). Hard and soft phantom stones were formed, and all tests were conducted in a custom experimental configuration installed in a saline-filled bath. The laser was delivered up to 3 kJ of total energy. The fragmentation pattern was assessed via photographs in each cohort. Results: The time to reach the target energy was 5 min and 50 s in all 10 W and 60 W trials, respectively. In both stone types, ablation was more effective when high-power, high-energy and Moses Distance was utilized. In soft stones, the lowest ablation rate was detected in the Long Pulse modality in all power, energy and frequency settings. Overall, when dusting settings (high-frequency, low-energy) were used, a deeper single cavitation was observed rather than small cavitations. Conclusions: The most effective pulse modality as evaluated via stone ablation rate depends on the stone hardness as well as energy and frequency settings. In both hard and soft stones, ablation is more effective when 60 W (2Jx30Hz) power settings and Moses Distance are used. Tailored laser settings in terms of energy and frequency could be set for each case scenario.

Flexible ureteroscopic treatment of kidney stones: How do the new laser systems change our concepts?

Objective: Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has become a widely accepted and effective technique for treating kidney stones. With the development of new laser systems, the fURS approach has evolved significantly. This literature review aims to examine the current state of knowledge on fURS treatment of kidney stones, with a particular focus on the impact of the latest laser technologies on clinical outcomes and patient safety. Methods: We conducted a search of the PubMed/PMC, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Databases for all randomized controlled trial articles on laser lithotripsy in September 2023 without time restriction. Results: We found a total of 22 relevant pieces of literature. Holmium laser has been used for intracavitary laser lithotripsy for nearly 30 years and has become the golden standard for the treatment of urinary stones. However, the existing holmium laser cannot completely powder the stone, and the retropulsion of the stone after the laser emission and the thermal damage to the tissue have caused many problems for clinicians. The introduction of thulium fiber laser and Moses technology brings highly efficient dusting lithotripsy effect through laser innovation, limiting pulse energy and broadening pulse frequency. Conclusion: While the holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser remains the primary choice for endoscopic laser lithotripsy, recent technological advancements hint at a potential new gold standard. Parameter range, retropulsion effect, laser fiber adaptability, and overall system performance demand comprehensive attention. The ablation efficacy of high-pulse-frequency devices relies on precise targeting, which may pose practical challenges.

Pulse modulation in En-Bloc HoLEP: does it really matter? A propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an established option in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pulse modulation, such as MOSES® technology, has recently been introduced and may offer potential advantages in HoLEP. METHODS: Perioperative data from 117 patients who underwent MOSES® laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) were collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, age, body mass index (BMI), and anticoagulant intake was performed using a database of 237 patients treated with HoLEP. In total, 234 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Prostate volume (104 vs. 102 ml), age (70 vs. 71 years), BMI (27 vs. 27), and anticoagulant intake (34 vs. 35%) did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no significant differences in operation time (61.5 vs. 58.1 min, p = 0.42), enucleation efficiency (2.5 vs. 2.6 g/min, p = 0.74), hemostasis time (7.8 vs. 8 min, p = 0.75) and hemoglobin drop (0.9 vs. 0.7 mg/dl, p = 0.48). The complication rates were low in both groups (16.2% for HoLEP and 17.1% for MoLEP). No differences were noted in the Clavien-Dindo Classification (p = 0.63) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (p = 0.24). The rate of complications > CDC IIIa was 0.9% for HoLEP (endoscopic coagulation) and 1.7% for MoLEP (2 cases of endoscopic coagulation). No transfusions were administered. CONCLUSION: Overall, the enucleation efficiency was high in both groups and the procedure time was short. HoLEP is an efficient and safe treatment option in experienced hands, regardless of the use of pulse modulation technology.

Analysis of lithotripsy efficiency and stone retropulsion displacement according to pulse characteristics of Ho: YAG laser with Moses effect.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compared to the conventional Ho: YAG laser, a Ho: YAG laser device has been reported that has a Moses effect to reduce stone retropulsion and increase lithotripsy efficiency. The principle of this equipment is to convert a single laser pulse into two pulses. Most studies on such lasers are limited to lithotripsy efficiency and the prevention of stone retropulsion; studies according to each pulse condition have not been performed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the bubble shape, lithotripsy efficiency, and stone retropulsion displacement in a ureteral phantom according to the modulation of the first pulse characteristics of the Moses effect laser under conditions that maintained the total energy and repetition rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a Ho: YAG laser system (Holinwon Pro, Wontech Inc., Korea) with an emission wavelength of 2.10 µm and a Moses effect was used. To verify the Moses effect based on the changes in the pulse, a water tank was fabricated, and the ureteral phantom was manufactured in a structure that could be easily installed in the water tank. Additionally, a spherical artificial stone in the ureteral phantom was prepared by mixing calcined gypsum (Cacinated Gypsum) and water at a ratio of 3:1. In the ureteral phantom, a high-speed camera (FASTCAM NOVA S12, Photron Inc.) and visible light were used to record pulse-dependent image analysis of bubbles and stone retropulsion. RESULT: After mounting the artificial stone in the ureteral phantom, the pulse duration and energy of the first pulse of the Moses effect laser were varied; 30 laser shots for 3 s at a repetition rate of 10 Hz were applied to quantify the lithotripsy efficiency and stone retropulsion displacement, and the experimental values were compared. The fragmentation efficiency was confirmed by measuring the mass before and after the laser pulse application, the original position of the stone retropulsion displacement, and the distance moved. The minimum value of stone retropulsion displacement appeared when the pulse duration of the first pulse was 300 µs, the pulse energy was 100 mJ, and the value was approximately 0.28 mm. The highest fragmentation efficiency was observed under the same conditions, and the mass loss of the artificial stone at that time was approximately 3.7 mg. CONCLUSION: Quantitative indices, such as lithotripsy efficiency and stone retropulsion displacement, were confirmed using ultrahigh-speed cameras to determine the effect of the first pulse energy and duration of the Ho: YAG laser with the Moses effect on stone removal. It was confirmed that the longer the duration of the primary pulse and the lower the energy, the higher the fragmentation efficiency. In this study, the possibility of manufacturing a laser with an optimal stone-removal effect was confirmed according to the first-pulse condition of the laser with the Moses effect.

Histopathological assessment of depth of coagulation necrosis with Holmium, Moses, and Thulium fiber lasers in human prostate tissue.

PURPOSE: To evaluate coagulation necrosis depth (CND) of Holmium (HL), Moses (ML), and Thulium fiber laser (TFL) in ex vivo human prostate tissue at various energy settings. METHODS: After endoscopic HL enucleation, small prostate tissue fragments were removed from the bladder with graspers and used for study. Immediately after surgery, a single incision was made on the surface of the tissue kept under normal saline at room temperature using a hand-held 550-µm laser fiber. Variable energy settings were tested for all three lasers. Two pathologists measured the CND with light microscopy using ocular micrometer. Impact of various laser settings on CND was analyzed. The differences in CND of all three lasers at similar laser power were compared. RESULTS: Mean CND was 0.56 ± 0.53 mm for long-pulse HL, 0.54 ± 0.53 mm for ML, 0.67 ± 0.67 mm for low-pulse TFL, and 0.81 ± 0.78 mm for high-pulse TFL. There was no significant difference between mean CND of HL and ML at various laser settings ranging from 10 to 120 W and CND with long- and short-pulse settings of TFL at settings from 10 to 60 W. There was a trend of increasing CND in HL and ML with increasing laser power; however, it was not statistically significant. TFL had similar tissue effects as HL and ML. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in CND of HL, ML, and TFL in ex vivo human prostate tissue. Other factors besides laser type and settings need to be studied to explain clinical differences among various lasers used for prostate enucleation.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of holmium laser with the Moses technology and regular mode for stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As a new pulse modality of holmium laser in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery, the MOSES technique can reduce the possibility of stone drifting and help to powder kidney stones in vitro and in animal experiments. However, there remains controversy about whether the MOSES mode needs to be used instead of the regular mode in clinical practice. This meta-review was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MOSES technology for stone disease. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched for relevant studies until September 2022, with 1 RCT and 6 nonrandomized studies included. We pulled data on adverse events, success rates and operative time to analyze based on the random effect model. RESULTS: We found that using MOSES mode could shorten the operative time (standard mean difference [SMD] - 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.79 to - 0.08; P = 0.016) than regular mode especially in a small sample study or in the Asian area. When the number of women is smaller than the number of men, the reduction of the duration was also significant. Stone-free rates of the two modes had no difference (relative risk [RR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.99-1.12; P = 0.30), and there was no publication bias. In terms of safety, no significant difference in complications was detected between the two approaches (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.48-1.53; P = 0.81) without significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: MOSES mode holmium laser was superior to the regular mode laser in terms of procedure time. There was no large disparity in stone-free rates or complications between the two modes. However, our conclusions should be confirmed in prospective studies with high evidence.

Use of Moses 2.0 with extended frequency and optimized Moses vs. high-power laser in MiniPCNL: a randomized controlled trial.

The aim of the study was to compare standard high-power laser (with < 80 Hz) to extended frequency (> 100 Hz) lithotripsy during miniPCNL. 40 patients were randomized in to two groups undergoing MiniPCNL. For both groups, the Holmium Pulse laser Moses 2.0 (Lumenis) was used. For group A, standard high-power laser with < 80 Hz, with Moses distance was set using up to 3 J. For Group B, extended frequency (100-120 Hz) was used allowing up to 0.6 J. All patients underwent MiniPCNL using an 18 Fr balloon access. Demographics were comparable between groups. Mean stone diameter was 19 mm (14-23) with no differences between groups (p = 0.14). Mean operative time was 91 and 87 min for group A and B (p = 0.71), mean laser time was similar in both groups, 6.5 min and 7.5 min, respectively (p = 0.52) as well as the number of laser activations during the surgery (p = 0.43). Mean Watts used was 18 and 16 respectively being similar in both groups (p = 0.54) as well as the total KJoules (p = 0.29). Endoscopic vision was good in all surgeries. The endoscopic and radiologic stone free rate was achieved in all patients expect for two in both groups (p = 0.72). Two Clavien I complications were seen, a small bleeding for group A and a small pelvic perforation in group B. The use of high-power holmium laser with extended frequency and optimized Moses was effective and safe being comparable to standard high-power laser for MiniPCNL allowing more versatility with the setting range.

Dynamic Changes in Fluid Temperatures during Laser Irradiation Using Various Laser Modes: A Thermography-Based In Vitro Phantom Study.

The differences in dynamic thermal changes during laser lithotripsy between various laser pulse modes are unclear. We used thermography to evaluate the temporal changes in high-temperature areas during laser activation in order to compare different laser pulse modes. An unroofed artificial kidney model was used for the experiments. The laser fired for 60 s with a laser setting of 0.4 J/60 Hz in the following four different laser pulse modes without saline irrigation: short pulse mode (SPM), long pulse mode (LPM), virtual basket mode (VBM) and Moses mode (MM). Using the first 30 s of moving images, we compared the ratio of a high-temperature area of >43 °C to the total area every 5 seconds. The dynamic changes in fluid temperatures were shown to be different between the laser pulse modes. The extent of the high-temperature areas during the laser activation was large in the LPM and MM compared with the SPM and VBM. While the high-temperature areas expanded in an anterior direction in the early laser irradiation period using the LPM, they spread in a posterior direction in the early laser activation period using the MM. Although only the temperature profile in one specific plane was investigated, these results are considered useful for preventing thermal injuries during retrograde intrarenal surgeries.

Does Moses technology enhance the efficiency and outcomes of regular holmium laser lithotripsy? Results of a pooled analysis of comparative studies.

Holmium laser lithotripsy is currently the optimum standard for surgical treatment of upper urinary calculi. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Moses compared with conventional holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of patients with upper urinary calculi. We conducted a systematic search using multiple databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) until June 2022. Clinical trials comparing Moses and conventional holmium laser lithotripsy were included. Analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4.4 software. Four studies with 892 patients were included. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rate (mean difference [MD] 1.19, 95% CI 0.54, 2.64, p = 0.66), operative time (MD - 9.31, 95% CI - 21.11, 2.48, p = 0.12), fragmentation time (MD - 1.71, 95% CI - 11.81, 8.38, p = 0.74), total energy used (MD 1.23, 95% CI - 0.44, 2.90, p = 0.15), auxiliary procedures (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08, 1.90, p = 0.24), and overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.30, 1.66, p = 0.42) between the groups. However, the laser working time (MD - 0.94, 95% CI - 1.20, - 0.67, p < 0.001) of Moses technology was shorter than that of conventional technology. Moses technology has similar outcomes to regular technology in terms of safety and efficacy. Given the higher operating costs of the Moses technology, further study is required to determine whether there are benefits to this new technology.

En Bloc enucleation with early apical release technique using MOSES (En Bloc MoLEP) vs. classic En Bloc HoLEP: a single arm study comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to describe the technique and outcomes of En-Bloc MOSES laser enucleation of the prostate (En-Bloc MoLEP) with early apical release comparing it to En-Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-arm prospective study, using a historical control. n = 80 patients were enrolled to the En Bloc MoLEP group and compared to a retrospective group of n = 137 patients treated by En Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES), in total n = 217 patients. RESULTS: En-Bloc MoLEP, showed to significantly improve the surgical time by 32% compared to non-MOSES HoLEP (32.16 ± 14.46 min, 47.58 ± 21.32, respectively; P = 0.003). Enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time were also significantly improved (P < 0.001, for all three parameters). Enucleation time was 22.10 ± 9.27 min and 31.46 ± 14.85 min (P < 0.001), ablation rate 4.11 ± 2.41 and 2.54 ± 1.31 gr/min (P < 0.001), Hemostasis time 3.01 ± 2.50 and 8.35 ± 5.38 min (P < 0.001), for En Bloc MoLEP and En Bloc HoLEP, respectively. Q-max, PVR, PSA and IPSS showed significant improvement, however, at 12 months no significant differences were observed comparing both groups. CONCLUSIONS: En-Bloc MoLEP was significantly better than En-Bloc HoLEP in terms of surgical time, enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time. However, large comparative RCT with long-term follow-up are needed.

Thermography-Based Comparison of Irrigation Temperatures Between Moses Mode and Virtual Basket Mode: An In Vitro Phantom Study.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate changes in irrigation fluid temperatures during laser activation by using thermography, with comparison between Moses mode (MM) and virtual basket mode (VBM). Materials and Methods: Experiments were performed using an unroofed pyelocaliceal model. The laser was fired for 60 seconds at 0.4 J/60 Hz. Three runs were tested per setting using short pulse mode, long pulse mode, MM contact, and VBM. The time to reach threshold of thermal injury (43°C) was evaluated using thermometer and thermography, both with and without saline irrigation (25 mL/min). These outcomes were compared between laser pulse modes. Results: In measurement of time to reach the threshold, thermography-based time was significantly shorter than thermometer-based time in all laser modes under the condition of no irrigation. Thermography measurement results indicate that the speed of temperature rise depends on laser pulse modes, and the time to reach the threshold in MM was significantly shorter than that in VBM (9.0 seconds vs 14.3 seconds, p = 0.03). When 25 mL/min saline irrigation was used, the peak temperatures by both thermometer and thermography measurements did not exceed the threshold during laser activation. Conclusions: Thermography-based evaluation suggests that irrigation temperatures near mucosa around stones can rapidly elevate during laser lithotripsy when the irrigation condition is poor. Temperature rise speed in MM may be more rapid than that in VBM. To prevent thermal injury, laser pulse modes must be used selectively according to the condition of irrigation.

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of Moses laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang databases, and SinoMed databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022. Stata17.0 was used for calculations and statistical analyses. RESULTS: This study included 12 articles comprising 1160 patients for meta-analysis. Compared with those of the HoLEP group, the hemostasis time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.47, -2.84], p < 0.001), enucleation time (WMD = -7.23, 95% CI [-10.67, -3.79], p < 0.001), operative time (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -11.19, 95% CI [-12.94, -9.44], p< 0.001), and total postoperative complications rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.32, 0.81], p = 0.004) were shorter in the MoLEP group. Postoperative quality of life (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59], p = 0.047) was lower in the HoLEP group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score, postoperative maximum urinary flow rate, and postoperative residual urine (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: MoLEP has more advantages than HoLEP in terms of safety, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer complications. However, this conclusion needs to be verified with a larger sample size, longer follow-up time, and multicenter randomized controlled trial data.

Firearm Safety Counseling in Pediatric Primary Care.

Injury from firearms is the leading cause of death among children and adolescents in the United States. Prevention requires a multi-pronged approach involving clinicians and policy. One evidence-based method to improve firearm safety is counseling with lock provision. Through sharing our experiences, we aim to inspire more health care practices to adopt firearm safety prevention strategies.

Late toxicity within a Phase III clinical trial of IG-IMRT in cervix cancer (PARCER): Reanalysis with time weighted adverse event reporting (MOSES).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This post-hoc analysis was performed to report the impact of Image guided intensity modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) across organ system and grades of toxicity within PARCER trial (NCT01279135). Primary endpoint of PARCER focused on grade ≥ 2 late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). We now analyze all adverse events using CTCAE and time and severity weighted toxicity reporting method (MOSES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MOSES was calculated separately for GI, genitourinary (GU)/GI, and any late toxicities (GI, GU, lymphedema, fatigue, vaginal stenosis, fibrosis and constitutional symptoms) by imputing proportionate time weightage to CTCAE. Cumulative MOSES (C-MOSES) for multiple system and multiorgan toxicity was determined. Difference in arms was analyzed as time-to-event and intention-to-treat analysis using CTCAE grade ≥ 1 and C-MOSES ≥ 0.70. RESULTS: We observed no difference in the 3-year cumulative incidence of CTCAE grade ≥ 1 GI, GI or GU, or any late toxicity between treatment arms. However, while using C-MOSES, HR of 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.92, p = 0.017), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.44-1.05, p = 0.08) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.99, p = 0.04) was observed for GI, GI or GU, or any late toxicity within IG-IMRT respectively. CONCLUSION: This demonstrates superior discrimination of intervention effects using MOSES which demonstrates superiority of IG-IMRT.

Comparative efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) using moses technology and standard HoLEP: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Purpose: The use of HoLEP was associated with steep learning curve thus prolonging operative procedure. The problem of learning curve could be solved with the invention of Moses HoLEP. This study aimed to evaluate the comparison of efficacy and safety between Moses HoLEP and standard HoLEP in BPH patient. Materials and methods: Systematic search was carried out using PRISMA guideline. Pubmed, Scopus and Embase were searched to collect randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the comparison in intraoperative, postoperative and complications characteristics. RevMan 5.4 and STATA were used in data analysis. Results: Total of 7 studies (1226 patients) were included. Regarding intraoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP provided significantly shorter enucleation time (MD: 3.00, 95% CI: 5.57 to -0.43, p = 0.02), shorter hemostasis time (MD: 3.79, 95% CI: 5.23 to -2.34, p < 0.00001), and shorter laser use time (MD: 2.79, 95% CI: 5.03 to -0.55, p = 0.01). For postoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP possessed significantly lower PVR (MD -34.57, 95% CI -56.85 to -12.30, p = 0.002). Overall complication was higher in standard HoLEP although the result was not significant (MD 0.68, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.21, p = 0.19). Moses HoLEP possessed more superiority over standard HoLEP regarding shorter hemostasis time with the increasing of prostate size (coefficient -0.894, p = 0.044). Conclusion: Moses HoLEP demonstrated shorter enucleation time, shorter hemostasis time and shorter laser use time. Moses HoLEP also possessed lower PVR. There were no safety issues in Moses HoLEP compared with standard HoLEP.

Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality.

Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm3 when compared with the LP Ho:YAG laser (35 W). This gain in lasing time did not provide enough savings for the medical center. Additionally, in most comparative studies of MT (1.0) vs. the regular mode of the HP Ho:YAG laser, the MT did not have a significant different lasing time, operative time or stone-free rate. Clinical trials with Moses 2.0 are lacking. From what has been published until now, the use of higher frequencies (up to 120 Hz) consumes more total energy and J/mm3 than Moses 1.0 for similar stone-free rates. Given the current evidence that we have, there are no high-quality studies that support the use of HP Ho:YAG lasers with MT over other lasers, such as LP Ho:YAG lasers or TFL lasers.