ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Impact of pulse modulation technology on operating room time and blood loss in HoLEP: real-world data from an academic center.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare perioperative and functional outcomes of standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 laser enucleation performed at an academic center with trainee involvement.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed men undergoing HoLEP between June 2022 and May 2024. Patients were grouped by laser platform: standard holmium, Moses 1.0, or Moses 2.0. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes up to six months were analyzed using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsAmong 389 patients (standard holmium 206; Moses 1.0 126; Moses 2.0 57), baseline characteristics were similar. Median operative times were 95, 105, and 100 min for standard holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0, respectively (p = 0.25), and median prostate weights were comparable (84 g, 85 g, 79 g; p = 0.44). Hospital stay was slightly longer with Moses lasers (1.6 vs. 1.4 days, p < 0.001), though this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant. Objective measures of bleeding-postoperative hemoglobin drop (1.7-2.0 g/dL) and transfusion rates (0-1.6%)-did not differ significantly between groups. Postoperative catheter duration, hospital stay, and complication rates were also comparable. Functional outcomes improved in all groups through 6 months, with no intergroup differences.
conclusionHoLEP is safe and effective across conventional holmium, Moses 1.0, and Moses 2.0 platforms, with comparable perioperative and functional outcomes. Although the literature suggests that Moses 2.0 may facilitate same-day discharge, its absence should not limit HoLEP availability, and platform selection may reasonably reflect institutional resources and surgeon preference.
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.