ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Impact of Moses technology on HoLEP day-case success rate: a monocentric matched paired cohort study.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMoses pulse modulation technology has been shown to improve enucleation efficiency and hemostasis during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Whether these technical advantages translate into better outcomes in a day-case setting remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on day-case HoLEP success. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a single-center matched-pair cohort study comparing day-case HoLEP performed with Moses 2.0 technology to conventional HoLEP. A prospective cohort of 100 consecutive Moses patients (June 2023-April 2025) was matched 1:1 by propensity score to a retrospective cohort of 100 conventional HoLEP patients (2015-2025), based on age, IPSS, prostate volume, voiding status, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. The primary endpoint was day-case success, defined as discharge on postoperative day 0 without readmission within 48 h. Secondary outcomes included perioperative variables, complications, and functional outcomes at 3 months.
resultsAfter matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Day-case success rates were 86% in the conventional group and 89% in the Moses group (p = 0.5). Persistent hematuria requiring prolonged bladder irrigation was the main cause of failure in both groups. Postoperative complication rates were similar (14% vs. 12%, p = 0.5), and no patient required blood transfusion. At 3 months, functional outcomes including Qmax, post-void residual volume, PSA, and IPSS were comparable between groups.
conclusionIn this large propensity-matched cohort of day-case HoLEP, Moses 2.0 technology was safe but did not significantly improve day-case success compared with conventional HoLEP. Although Moses technology enhances intraoperative laser performance, its clinical benefit in an expert outpatient setting appears limited. Further studies should identify subgroups that may derive greater benefit from this technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606747What 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.