Cargando…

Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality

Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this puls...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corrales, Mariela, Sierra, Alba, Traxer, Olivier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9409732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164828
_version_ 1784774923171921920
author Corrales, Mariela
Sierra, Alba
Traxer, Olivier
author_facet Corrales, Mariela
Sierra, Alba
Traxer, Olivier
author_sort Corrales, Mariela
collection PubMed
description Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm(3) when compared with the LP Ho:YAG laser (35 W). This gain in lasing time did not provide enough savings for the medical center. Additionally, in most comparative studies of MT (1.0) vs. the regular mode of the HP Ho:YAG laser, the MT did not have a significant different lasing time, operative time or stone-free rate. Clinical trials with Moses 2.0 are lacking. From what has been published until now, the use of higher frequencies (up to 120 Hz) consumes more total energy and J/mm(3) than Moses 1.0 for similar stone-free rates. Given the current evidence that we have, there are no high-quality studies that support the use of HP Ho:YAG lasers with MT over other lasers, such as LP Ho:YAG lasers or TFL lasers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9409732
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94097322022-08-26 Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality Corrales, Mariela Sierra, Alba Traxer, Olivier J Clin Med Review Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm(3) when compared with the LP Ho:YAG laser (35 W). This gain in lasing time did not provide enough savings for the medical center. Additionally, in most comparative studies of MT (1.0) vs. the regular mode of the HP Ho:YAG laser, the MT did not have a significant different lasing time, operative time or stone-free rate. Clinical trials with Moses 2.0 are lacking. From what has been published until now, the use of higher frequencies (up to 120 Hz) consumes more total energy and J/mm(3) than Moses 1.0 for similar stone-free rates. Given the current evidence that we have, there are no high-quality studies that support the use of HP Ho:YAG lasers with MT over other lasers, such as LP Ho:YAG lasers or TFL lasers. MDPI 2022-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9409732/ /pubmed/36013067 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164828 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Corrales, Mariela
Sierra, Alba
Traxer, Olivier
Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title_full Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title_fullStr Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title_full_unstemmed Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title_short Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality
title_sort moses and moses 2.0 for laser lithotripsy: expectations vs. reality
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9409732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36013067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11164828
work_keys_str_mv AT corralesmariela mosesandmoses20forlaserlithotripsyexpectationsvsreality
AT sierraalba mosesandmoses20forlaserlithotripsyexpectationsvsreality
AT traxerolivier mosesandmoses20forlaserlithotripsyexpectationsvsreality