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.