Search

Background: In vitro studies have shown that the holmium Modulated Optics Enhancement Systems (MOSES) technology can lead to an increase in the efficacy of lithotripsy and a reduction of retropulsion, but clinical evidence comparing it to non-MOSES technology is still scarce. We did a comparison of ureteoroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL) between Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES versus non-MOSES technologies. Methods: Patient data and outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Patients undergoing URSL with standard holmium laser without MOSES technology (Group 1) were compared to holmium laser with MOSES (Group 2) using the same clinical laser settings (0.4–1 J, 20–40 Hz) with dusting and pop-dusting technique. The independent t -test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Chi-squared test were used, with a p -value of < 0.05 as significant. Given the different sizes of the cohorts, we performed a propensity score 1:1 matched analysis. Results: A total of 206 patients (1:1 matched) with a male:female ratio of 94:112 and a median age of 56 (range: 39–68) years were analyzed. Groups 1 and 2 were matched for ureteric stones (27.7% and 22.3%, p = 0.42), pre-stenting (37% and 35%, p = 0.66), the mean number of stones (1.76 ± 1.3) and (1.82 ± 1.4, p = 0.73), and ureteral access sheath use (37% and 35%, p = 0.77) respectively. While there was no significant statistical difference in clinical outcomes, the stone size was slightly larger in Group 2, 14.8 ± 10.8 mm vs 11.7 ± 8.0 mm, for a lower operative time 42.7 ± 30.6 min versus 48.5 ± 25 min, lower perioperative complication rates 3.9% versus 4.9% and a higher stone-free rate 90.3% versus 87.4%. Conclusion: While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for the treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high-quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes. Plain language summary: We compare the outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL), using Holmium:YAG laser with MOSES vs Non-MOSES technology: It is a prospective single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings It is a single-centre propensity score-matched analysis using similar laser settings. While the use of MOSES technology was slightly beneficial for treatment of stones in terms of clinical outcomes, this was not statistically significant. As this debate continues, there is a need for high quality randomized studies to show if there is a true difference in these outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several mobile healthcare (mHealth) apps are available in various marketplaces, but there is still concern about their accuracy, data safety, and regulation. The goal of this review was to critically analyze the mobile apps created for education, diagnosis, and medical and surgical treatment of patients with kidney stone disease (KSD), as well as to assess the level of data security, the contribution of physicians in their development and adherence to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Medical Device Regulation (MDR) guidance. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed (September 2022), in the Apple App Store and Google Play store using relevant keywords and inclusion criteria. Information was extracted for the name of the app, primary and additional functionalities, release and last update, number of downloads, number of marks and average rating, Android/ iOS compatibility, initial and in-app payments, data safety statement, physician involvement statement, and FDA/MDR guidance. A total of 986 apps and 222 articles were reviewed, of which based on the inclusion, 83 apps were finally analyzed. The apps were allocated to six categories about their primary purpose: education (n=8), fluid trackers (n=54), food content description and calculators (n=11), diagnosis (n=3), pre- and intra-operative application (n=4), and stent trackers (n=2). Of these apps, the number of apps supported for Android, iOS, and both of them were 36, 23, and 23, respectively. Despite a wide range of apps available for KSD, the participation of doctors in their development, data security, and functionality remains insufficient. Further development of mHealth should be carried out properly under the supervision of urological associations involving patient support groups, and these apps must be regularly updated for their content and data security [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]