BJU international · 2026
Prospective randomised double-blind trial: holmium laser lithotripsy with vs without Moses™ 2.0.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maciolek Kimberly A, Nimmagadda Naren, Lee Aaron X, Reed Amy M, Hsi Ryan S, Koyama Tatsuki, Forbes Connor M, Lee Matthew S, Chehroudi Cyrus, Margolin Ezra J, Chew Ben H, Bechis Seth K, Humphreys Mitchell R, Lipkin Michael E, Monga Manoj, Shah Ojas, Stern Karen L, Sur Roger L, Sivalingam Sri, Miller Nicole L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8-20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion.
SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups (P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion (P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone-free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high-powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double-blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.
SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups (P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion (P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone-free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high-powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double-blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.