Prospective randomised double‐blind trial: holmium laser lithotripsy with vs without Moses™ 2.0

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8-20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups (P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion (P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone-free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high-powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double-blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal of Urology
Published
2026-09-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70446
Primary Topic
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Prospective randomised double‐blind trial: holmium laser lithotripsy with vs without Moses™ 2.0

Seth K. Bechis, Ryan S. Hsi, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Amy M. Reed et al.
British Journal of Urology
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
article

Prospective randomised double‐blind trial: holmium laser lithotripsy with vs without Moses™ 2.0

Seth K. Bechis, Ryan S. Hsi, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Amy M. Reed, Ojas Shah, Tatsuki Koyama, Ben H. Chew, Kimberly A. Maciolek, Sri Sivalingam, Ezra J. Margolin, Connor M. Forbes, Roger L. Sur, Nicole L. Miller, Naren Nimmagadda, Cyrus Chehroudi, Matthew Lee, Aaron Lee, Karen L Ster, Michael E. Lipkin, Manoj Monga
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8-20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups (P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion (P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone-free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high-powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double-blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.

British Journal of Urology
Cleveland Clinic (US), University of British Columbia (CA), Johns Hopkins University (US), University of San Diego (US), University of California, Irvine (US), Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US), Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US), UC San Diego Health System (US), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US), Mayo Clinic Hospital (US), Duke University Health System (US), Cancer Institute of Florida (US), University of Virginia (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.