用于前列腺钬激光去核术(HoLEP)的第二代 MOSES 2.0 与 MOSES 1.0 脉冲调制技术对比。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY World Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05277-7
Hazem Elmansy, Ryan Boudreau, Amr Hodhod, Saud Alhelal, Husain Alaradi, Khaled Alotaibi, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Oksana Blahitko, Ryan Kelly, Ahmed S Zakaria
{"title":"用于前列腺钬激光去核术(HoLEP)的第二代 MOSES 2.0 与 MOSES 1.0 脉冲调制技术对比。","authors":"Hazem Elmansy, Ryan Boudreau, Amr Hodhod, Saud Alhelal, Husain Alaradi, Khaled Alotaibi, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Oksana Blahitko, Ryan Kelly, Ahmed S Zakaria","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05277-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>To report our initial experience with enhanced MOSES 2.0 technology in patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), in comparison to those who underwent HoLEP with MOSES 1.0 technology at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who underwent HoLEP using MOSES 1.0 or MOSES 2.0 pulse-modulation technology from December 2020 to September 2023. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, as well as perioperative complications were collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 196 patients were included in the study. Among them, 146 patients underwent MOSES 1.0 HoLEP, while 50 had MOSES 2.0 HoLEP. No statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics were observed between the two groups. The median prostate volume for the MOSES 1.0 and MOSES 2.0 HoLEP groups was 109 cc and 117.5 cc, respectively. Patients in the MOSES 2.0 group had a shorter median enucleation time (52.5 vs. 42.5 min, p < 0.001) and hemostasis time (8 vs. 6 min, p = 0.002), along with lower laser energy usage (101 vs. 86.4 kJ, p = 0.012), when compared to those in the MOSES 1.0 cohort. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR, were comparable between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperative. The incidence of hospital readmission (p = 0.42), as well as one-month postoperative urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.2) and stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.13) were also comparable between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP with second-generation MOSES 2.0 technology is a safe and effective treatment option for BPH. It offers notable improvements, including reduced enucleation and hemostasis times, while using less energy when compared to MOSES 1.0.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"42 1","pages":"577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Second-generation MOSES 2.0 versus MOSES 1.0 pulse-modulation technologies for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).\",\"authors\":\"Hazem Elmansy, Ryan Boudreau, Amr Hodhod, Saud Alhelal, Husain Alaradi, Khaled Alotaibi, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Oksana Blahitko, Ryan Kelly, Ahmed S Zakaria\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00345-024-05277-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>To report our initial experience with enhanced MOSES 2.0 technology in patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), in comparison to those who underwent HoLEP with MOSES 1.0 technology at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who underwent HoLEP using MOSES 1.0 or MOSES 2.0 pulse-modulation technology from December 2020 to September 2023. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, as well as perioperative complications were collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 196 patients were included in the study. Among them, 146 patients underwent MOSES 1.0 HoLEP, while 50 had MOSES 2.0 HoLEP. No statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics were observed between the two groups. The median prostate volume for the MOSES 1.0 and MOSES 2.0 HoLEP groups was 109 cc and 117.5 cc, respectively. Patients in the MOSES 2.0 group had a shorter median enucleation time (52.5 vs. 42.5 min, p < 0.001) and hemostasis time (8 vs. 6 min, p = 0.002), along with lower laser energy usage (101 vs. 86.4 kJ, p = 0.012), when compared to those in the MOSES 1.0 cohort. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR, were comparable between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperative. The incidence of hospital readmission (p = 0.42), as well as one-month postoperative urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.2) and stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.13) were also comparable between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP with second-generation MOSES 2.0 technology is a safe and effective treatment option for BPH. It offers notable improvements, including reduced enucleation and hemostasis times, while using less energy when compared to MOSES 1.0.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05277-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05277-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介和目的:报告本院使用增强型 MOSES 2.0 技术治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的前列腺钬激光去核术(HoLEP)患者的初步经验,并与使用 MOSES 1.0 技术进行前列腺钬激光去核术的患者进行比较:我们回顾性分析了2020年12月至2023年9月期间使用MOSES 1.0或MOSES 2.0脉冲调制技术进行HoLEP手术的患者数据。对术前、术中参数、术后结果以及围手术期并发症进行了收集和分析:研究共纳入了 196 名患者。其中,146 名患者接受了 MOSES 1.0 HoLEP,50 名患者接受了 MOSES 2.0 HoLEP。两组患者的术前特征无明显统计学差异。MOSES 1.0 HoLEP 组和 MOSES 2.0 HoLEP 组的前列腺体积中位数分别为 109 毫升和 117.5 毫升。MOSES 2.0 组患者的中位去核时间更短(52.5 分钟对 42.5 分钟,P采用第二代 MOSES 2.0 技术的 HoLEP 是治疗良性前列腺增生症的一种安全有效的方法。与 MOSES 1.0 相比,它有显著的改进,包括缩短了去核和止血时间,同时使用更少的能量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Second-generation MOSES 2.0 versus MOSES 1.0 pulse-modulation technologies for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

Introduction and objective: To report our initial experience with enhanced MOSES 2.0 technology in patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), in comparison to those who underwent HoLEP with MOSES 1.0 technology at our institution.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who underwent HoLEP using MOSES 1.0 or MOSES 2.0 pulse-modulation technology from December 2020 to September 2023. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, as well as perioperative complications were collected and analyzed.

Results: A total of 196 patients were included in the study. Among them, 146 patients underwent MOSES 1.0 HoLEP, while 50 had MOSES 2.0 HoLEP. No statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics were observed between the two groups. The median prostate volume for the MOSES 1.0 and MOSES 2.0 HoLEP groups was 109 cc and 117.5 cc, respectively. Patients in the MOSES 2.0 group had a shorter median enucleation time (52.5 vs. 42.5 min, p < 0.001) and hemostasis time (8 vs. 6 min, p = 0.002), along with lower laser energy usage (101 vs. 86.4 kJ, p = 0.012), when compared to those in the MOSES 1.0 cohort. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR, were comparable between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperative. The incidence of hospital readmission (p = 0.42), as well as one-month postoperative urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.2) and stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.13) were also comparable between the cohorts.

Conclusions: HoLEP with second-generation MOSES 2.0 technology is a safe and effective treatment option for BPH. It offers notable improvements, including reduced enucleation and hemostasis times, while using less energy when compared to MOSES 1.0.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
期刊最新文献
Defining a threshold for safe surgical management of vena cava thrombus in renal cell carcinoma patients: evidence from German total population data with 3,700 cases from 2006 to 2020. Endoscopic holmium laser harvesting of bladder mucosal graft for urethroplasty: retrospective analysis of single center preliminary results. Surgical experience overcomes the impact of prostatic-urethral anatomy on continence recovery after robotic prostatectomy: comprehensive analysis on 366 cases. Can the free/total psa ratio predict undetected intraductal carcinoma and cribriform pattern at biopsy? Association between cardiometabolic index and kidney stones in US diabetic patients: NHANES 2007-2018.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1