BACKGROUND: For ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL), the use of laser technology has shifted from low power to higher power lasers and the addition of Moses technology, that allows for 'fragmentation, dusting and pop-dusting' of stones. We wanted to compare the outcomes of URSL for Moses technology 60 W laser system versus matched regular Holmium 20 W laser cases. METHODS: Prospective data were collected for patients who underwent URSL using a Moses 60 W laser (Group A) and matched to historical control data using a regular Holmium 20 W laser (Group B), performed by a single surgeon. Data were collected for patient demographics, stone location, size, pre- and post-operative stent, operative time, length of stay, complications and stone free rate (SFR). RESULTS: A total of 38 patients in each group underwent the URSL procedure. The stones were matched for their location (17 renal and 11 ureteric stones). The mean single and cumulative stone sizes (mm) were 10.9 ± 4.4 and 15.5 ± 9.9, and 11.8 ± 4.0 and 16.5 ± 11.3 for groups A and B, respectively. The mean operative time (min) was 51.6 ± 17.1 and 82.1 ± 27.0 (p ≤ 0.0001) for groups A and B. The initial SFR was 97.3% and 81.6% for groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.05), with 1 and 7 patients in each group needing a second procedure (p = 0.05), for a final SFR of 100% and 97.3%. While there were 2 and 5 Clavien I/II complications for groups A and B, none of the patients in group A had any infection related complication. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Moses technology with higher power was significantly faster for stone lithotripsy and reduced operative time and the number of patients who needed a second procedure to achieve a stone free status. It seems that the use of Moses technology with a mid-power laser is likely to set a new benchmark for treating complex stones, without the need for secondary procedures in most patients.
BACKGROUND: For ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL), the use of laser technology has shifted from low power to higher power lasers and the addition of Moses technology, that allows for 'fragmentation, dusting and pop-dusting' of stones. We wanted to compare the outcomes of URSL for Moses technology 60 W laser system versus matched regular Holmium 20 W laser cases. METHODS: Prospective data were collected for patients who underwent URSL using a Moses 60 W laser (Group A) and matched to historical control data using a regular Holmium 20 W laser (Group B), performed by a single surgeon. Data were collected for patient demographics, stone location, size, pre- and post-operative stent, operative time, length of stay, complications and stone free rate (SFR). RESULTS: A total of 38 patients in each group underwent the URSL procedure. The stones were matched for their location (17 renal and 11 ureteric stones). The mean single and cumulative stone sizes (mm) were 10.9 ± 4.4 and 15.5 ± 9.9, and 11.8 ± 4.0 and 16.5 ± 11.3 for groups A and B, respectively. The mean operative time (min) was 51.6 ± 17.1 and 82.1 ± 27.0 (p ≤ 0.0001) for groups A and B. The initial SFR was 97.3% and 81.6% for groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.05), with 1 and 7 patients in each group needing a second procedure (p = 0.05), for a final SFR of 100% and 97.3%. While there were 2 and 5 Clavien I/II complications for groups A and B, none of the patients in group A had any infection related complication. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Moses technology with higher power was significantly faster for stone lithotripsy and reduced operative time and the number of patients who needed a second procedure to achieve a stone free status. It seems that the use of Moses technology with a mid-power laser is likely to set a new benchmark for treating complex stones, without the need for secondary procedures in most patients.
Authors: Antoni Sánchez-Puy; Alejandra Bravo-Balado; Pietro Diana; Michael Baboudjian; Alberto Piana; Irene Girón; Andrés K Kanashiro; Oriol Angerri; Pablo Contreras; Brian H Eisner; Josep Balañà; Francisco M Sánchez-Martín; Félix Millán; Joan Palou; Esteban Emiliani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 4.964