Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of HoLEP was associated with steep learning curve thus prolonging operative procedure. The problem of learning curve could be solved with the invention of Moses HoLEP. This study aimed to evaluate the comparison of efficacy and safety between Moses HoLEP and standard HoLEP in BPH patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic search was carried out using PRISMA guideline. Pubmed, Scopus and Embase were searched to collect randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the comparison in intraoperative, postoperative and complications characteristics. RevMan 5.4 and STATA were used in data analysis. RESULTS: Total of 7 studies (1226 patients) were included. Regarding intraoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP provided significantly shorter enucleation time (MD: 3.00, 95% CI: 5.57 to -0.43, p = 0.02), shorter hemostasis time (MD: 3.79, 95% CI: 5.23 to -2.34, p < 0.00001), and shorter laser use time (MD: 2.79, 95% CI: 5.03 to -0.55, p = 0.01). For postoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP possessed significantly lower PVR (MD -34.57, 95% CI -56.85 to -12.30, p = 0.002). Overall complication was higher in standard HoLEP although the result was not significant (MD 0.68, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.21, p = 0.19). Moses HoLEP possessed more superiority over standard HoLEP regarding shorter hemostasis time with the increasing of prostate size (coefficient -0.894, p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Moses HoLEP demonstrated shorter enucleation time, shorter hemostasis time and shorter laser use time. Moses HoLEP also possessed lower PVR. There were no safety issues in Moses HoLEP compared with standard HoLEP.