Comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation between Holmium: YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technology: a prospective single-center propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings

Victoria Jahrreiss; Francesco Ripa; Clara Cerrato; Carlotta Nedbal; Amelia Pietropaolo; Bhaskar Somani

doi:10.1177/17562872241272974

Comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation between Holmium: YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technology: a prospective single-center propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings

Ther Adv Urol. 2024 Aug 20:16:17562872241272974. doi: 10.1177/17562872241272974. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.

Authors

Victoria Jahrreiss^{1

2

3}, Francesco Ripa⁴, Clara Cerrato², Carlotta Nedbal², Amelia Pietropaolo², Bhaskar Somani^{5

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
² University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
³ EAU Section on Urolithiasis (EULIS), Arnhem, the Netherlands.
⁴ Department of Stones and Endourology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
⁵ University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.

Abstract

Background: In vitro studies have shown that the holmium Modulated Optics Enhancement Systems (MOSES) technology can lead to an increase in the efficacy of lithotripsy and a reduction of retropulsion, but clinical evidence comparing it to non-MOSES technology is still scarce. We did a comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) between Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technologies.

Methods: Patient data and outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Patients undergoing URSL with standard holmium laser without MOSES technology (Group 1) were compared to holmium laser with MOSES (Group 2) using the same clinical laser settings (0.4-1 J, 20-40 Hz) with dusting and pop-dusting technique. The independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-squared test were used, with a p-value of < 0.05 as significant. Given the different sizes of the cohorts, we performed a propensity score 1:1 matched analysis.

Results: A total of 206 patients (1:1 matched) with a male:female ratio of 94:112 and a median age of 56 (range: 39-68) years were analyzed. Groups 1 and 2 were matched for ureteric stones (27.7% and 22.3%, p = 0.42), pre-stenting (37% and 35%, p = 0.66), the mean number of stones (1.76 ± 1.3) and (1.82 ± 1.4, p = 0.73), and ureteral access sheath use (37% and 35%, p = 0.77) respectively.While there was no significant statistical difference in clinical outcomes, the stone size was slightly larger in Group 2, 14.8 ± 10.8 mm vs 11.7 ± 8.0 mm, for a lower operative time 42.7 ± 30.6 min versus 48.5 ± 25 min, lower perioperative complication rates 3.9% versus 4.9% and a higher stone-free rate 90.3% versus 87.4%.

Conclusion: While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for the treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high-quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes.

Keywords: MOSES; holmium; kidney calculi; laser; stone disease; urolithiasis.

Plain language summary

We compare the outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL), using Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES vs Non-MOSES technology: It is a prospective single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings It is a single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings. While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes.