Current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology compared to the gold standard TURP

Abstract

Purpose: Bipolar TURP is regarded as the gold standard for treatment of BPH. Historically, when compared to HOLEP, bTURP has been found to have shorter operative times and is considered more efficient. We sought to compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety of current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology (MOLEP) and bTURP.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bTURP or MOLEP at our institution between 2018 and 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were collected for analysis. Analysis was done with SPSS software with significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results: We identified 195 bTURPs and 918 MOLEPs performed at our institution. Men undergoing MOLEP had significantly higher pre-op prostate volume and resected weight (61 ml v 123 ml and 15 g v 70 g, p < 0.001, respectively) when compared to bTURP patients. MOLEP was completed in significantly less OR and procedure time compared to bTURP (66 min vs. 73 min, p < 0.001; 90 min vs. 111 min, p = 0.026, respectively). These results remained significant when controlling for age and prostate volume. At a mean follow up of 3.7 months, HOLEP patients were significantly more likely to be medication (0 vs. 35.84% p < 0.001) and catheter free post-operatively (0.95% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001) compared to bTURP.

Conclusion: In our contemporary cohort, MOLEP is faster and more efficient than bTURP. These findings remained significant despite being performed on larger prostates and in patients more likely to be anticoagulated. Furthermore, MOLEP patients are more likely to remain catheter and medication free at follow-up when compared to bTURP.

Keywords: BPH; HOLEP; Prostate; TURP.