Trial reportUrolithiasis2024
Comparison of conventional (basketing + dusting) and Moses (pop-dusting) holmium lasers during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones between 2 and 3 cm: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stone dust in endourology: a systematic review of its definition, management, and clinical impact.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Lasing strategy and its influence on 30-day operative outcomes in flexible ureteroscopy with FANS: inferences from a real-world prospective multicenter study by EAU-endourology and AUSET.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the feasibility of conventional (basketing + dusting) and Moses (pop-dusting) holmium lasers during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the treatment of 2-3 cm renal calculi and to compare the efficiency and safety of the two methods, a total of 230 patients with 2-3 cm kidney stones who underwent FURS were randomly divided into the conventional group and the Moses group. The mode of lithotripsy in the conventional group was fragmentation and dusting. The mode of lithotripsy in the Moses group was dusting and pop-dusting. Clinical and perioperative variables and complications were compared between the two cohorts. Multivariate analyses of factors contributing to the stone-free rate (SFR) and operation time were performed. No statistically significant differences were found in the demographics, renal stone-related data, SFR, or complications between the cohorts. The laser energy was higher in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (119.3 ± 15.2 vs. 92.8 ± 15.1 kJ; P < 0.001), and the operation time was shorter in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (99.5 ± 18.9 vs. 105.3 ± 13.7 min; P = 0.009). When there was isolated stone, the operation time was shorter in the Moses cohort than in the conventional cohort (99.6 ± 17.5 vs. 111.4 ± 10.7 min; P < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the two cohorts when there were multiple stones (99.5 ± 20 vs. 101.2 ± 14 min; P = 0.415). Multivariate analyses found that an increase in stone volume can decrease the SFR and prolong the operation time, and use of a Moses laser can shorten the operation time. Both holmium laser modes during FURS can effectively treat 2-3 cm renal calculi. The Moses mode is recommended as the first choice for the treatment of isolated 2-3 cm renal stones. When treating multiple stones, the efficiency of these two laser modalities is the same.
trial registrationChiCTR2200056091.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38874782What 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.