ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology compared to the gold standard TURP.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of cognitive magnetic resonance-ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy outcomes in left lateral decubitus vs lithotomy positions: a prospective randomized study cognitive magnetic resonance-ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy.International urology and nephrology · 2025Trial
- Urodynamic de-obstruction and symptom improvement after thulium laser vaporization (ThuVAP): evidence from a prospective paired study.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBipolar TURP is regarded as the gold standard for treatment of BPH. Historically, when compared to HOLEP, bTURP has been found to have shorter operative times and is considered more efficient. We sought to compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety of current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology (MOLEP) and bTURP.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bTURP or MOLEP at our institution between 2018 and 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were collected for analysis. Analysis was done with SPSS software with significance defined as p < 0.05.
resultsWe identified 195 bTURPs and 918 MOLEPs performed at our institution. Men undergoing MOLEP had significantly higher pre-op prostate volume and resected weight (61 ml v 123 ml and 15 g v 70 g, p < 0.001, respectively) when compared to bTURP patients. MOLEP was completed in significantly less OR and procedure time compared to bTURP (66 min vs. 73 min, p < 0.001; 90 min vs. 111 min, p = 0.026, respectively). These results remained significant when controlling for age and prostate volume. At a mean follow up of 3.7 months, HOLEP patients were significantly more likely to be medication (0 vs. 35.84% p < 0.001) and catheter free post-operatively (0.95% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001) compared to bTURP.
conclusionIn our contemporary cohort, MOLEP is faster and more efficient than bTURP. These findings remained significant despite being performed on larger prostates and in patients more likely to be anticoagulated. Furthermore, MOLEP patients are more likely to remain catheter and medication free at follow-up when compared to bTURP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514127What 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.