MP10-16 DOES THE USE OF MOSES TECHNOLOGY INCREASE EFFICIENCY DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR STONE DISEASE? SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Instrumentation & Technology I (MP10)1 Sep 2021MP10-16 DOES THE USE OF MOSES TECHNOLOGY INCREASE EFFICIENCY DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR STONE DISEASE? SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE Margaret Knoedler, Shuang Li, Sara Best, Sean Hedican, Kristina Penniston, and Stephen Nakada Margaret Knoedler Margaret Knoedler More articles by this author , Shuang LiShuang Li More articles by this author , Sara BestSara Best More articles by this author , Sean HedicanSean Hedican More articles by this author , Kristina PennistonKristina Penniston More articles by this author , and Stephen NakadaStephen Nakada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001983.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of Moses technology compared to the regular mode during flexible ureteroscopy for stone disease. Moses technology has been shown to improve stone fragmentation both in vitro and in vivo, but it is unclear if this translates into improved efficiency in the operating room. METHODS: An IRB approved database of patients with upper tract stones was analyzed for ureteroscopies from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy with the Lumenis Pulse P120H holmium laser system with the regular or Moses mode were included. Patient characteristics including age, gender, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, gout, chronic urinary tract infection, chronic kidney disease, bowel disease and cumulative stone size were evaluated. Outcome measures included procedural time, laser time, total energy used, laser efficiency (laser time per stone size), complication rate and stone free rate. Univariate analysis with chi squared and MANCOVA controlling for cumulative stone size and comorbidities were performed. Patients were excluded if they had a staged procedure. RESULTS: Of the 200 surgical cases, 184 met the inclusion criteria. Moses was utilized in 114 cases and the regular mode in 70 cases. There was no difference in the cumulative stone size between the Moses and regular mode (11.6±7.4 vs 10.5±8.4 mm, p=0.314). Procedural time (44.5±33.6 vs 38.5±23.8 min, p=0.282), laser time (7.3±11 vs 6.6±8.2 min, p=0.927), total energy used (4.9±6.7 vs 3.7±4.9 kJ, p=0.373), and laser efficiency (4.7±6.5 vs 5.5±9.8 mm/min, p=0.501) were also similar between the two groups. Complications (6.1% vs 5.7%, p=0.906) and stone free rates (67.4% vs 70.4%, p=0.712) did not differ between the two. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, Moses technology did not demonstrate a significant change in procedural time, laser time, total energy used or laser efficiency. Moreover, there was no difference in complications or stone free rate. There may be other technical benefits to Moses technology not captured in this analysis. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e174-e174 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Margaret Knoedler More articles by this author Shuang Li More articles by this author Sara Best More articles by this author Sean Hedican More articles by this author Kristina Penniston More articles by this author Stephen Nakada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...