ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
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.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Same-day catheter removal after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of pulse modulation technology on operating room time and blood loss in HoLEP: real-world data from an academic center.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Virtual basket mode in HoLEP: reduced early dysuria and faster continence recovery without loss of efficacy.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Article
- A retrospective study comparing holmium Laser enucleation vs. transurethral resection for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Moses Pulse Modulation: An Evaluation of Whether This Is Hype or Breakthrough.Cureus · 2025Review
- Current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology compared to the gold standard TURP.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Pulse modulation in En-Bloc HoLEP: does it really matter? A propensity score matched analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Primary prostate Burkitt's lymphoma resected with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A rare case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Do Bowel Disorders Affect Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate Outcomes? A Retrospective Cohort Study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.