[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"endoscopic-anatomical-enucleation-of-the-prostate-eeap\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:endoscopic-anatomical-enucleation-of-the-prostate-eeap":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,2,0,[8,44],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":17,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":20,"phases":21,"briefSummary":23,"conditions":24,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":32,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":33,"startDateStruct":36,"completionDateStruct":38,"leadSponsor":40,"locationsCount":43},"100565990","comparison-between-bipolar-transurethral-resection-of-the-prostate-and-moses-assisted-holmium-laser-enucleation-of-the-prostate-100565990",false,"NCT06649357","Comparison Between Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Moses Assisted Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate","Comparison Between Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Moses Assisted Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with maximum flow rate \\\u003C 15 ml\u002Fsec before obstructive surgery or with maximum flow rate \\> 15 ml\u002Fsec and urodynamic study showing high-flow obstruction defined as bladder outlet obstruction index \\> 40.\n* Patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Score between 8 and 35.\n* Patients with a prostate volume between 40 and 80 cc, measured by urological ultrasound or MRI.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of prior prostatic obstructive or urethral surgery.\n* Diagnosis of prostate neoplasia.\n* Diagnosis of urothelial neoplasia.\n* Lack of flowmetry or IPSS data before surgery.\n* Diagnosis or suspicion of hypo\u002Facontractile detrusor before prostatic obstructive surgery.\n* Diagnosis or suspicion of neurogenic bladder or neurological disease.\n* History of pelvic radiation therapy.","MALE",{"count":18,"type":19},130,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[22],"NA","Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of HoLEP in aspects such as transfusión rates or postoperative stay. On the other hand, no differences have been observed in terms of functional outcomes between both techniques, and surgical times reported in different studies tend to be longer for HoLEP. These results likely contribute to TURP, especially with bipolar energy (Bi-TURP), continuing to be considered by many the gold standard for surgical treatment of BPH.\n\nSofware and hardware upgrades to the Lumenis Pulse 120H. system in 2017, delivered MOSES 2.0, a single-use laser fibre used to perform MOSES augmented HoLEP (MoLEP). MoLEP has shown to be superior in intraoperative outcomes when compared to traditional HoLEP. The availability of new morcellators might also decrease surgical time for HoLEP. This changing landscape for BPH endoscopic surgery deserves a re-evaluation of the differences between Bi-TURP and MoLEP.\n\nPrimary Objective: To compare the hospital stay of patients of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.\n\nSecondary objectives:\n\n* To compare the surgical time of MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.\n* To compare the bladder catheterization time aCer MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.\n* To compare the postoperative complication rate patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.\n* To compare functional results of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.\n\nThis study is a prospective multicentric randomized and controlled trial. The study compares two types of BPH surgery without changing standard medical practice.\n\nThe study will include patients who are candidates according to standard medical practice for BPH surgery. Patients will be randomized to one of two groups of treatment.\n\n* The MoLEP group will receive surgical treatment with MoLEP.\n* The Bi-TURP group will receive surgical treatment with Bi-TURP. Surgical technique and postoperative care will follow standard clinical practice at each participating centre.",[25,26,27],"Prostate Hyperplasia","Surgery","Endoscopic Anatomical Enucleation of the Prostate (EEAP)",[29,26,30],"Prostate hyperplasia","Endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEAP)","RECRUITING","2026-04-23",{"date":34,"type":35},"2026-04-29","ACTUAL",{"date":37,"type":35},"2025-04-01",{"date":39,"type":19},"2030-11",{"name":41,"class":42},"Fundacio Puigvert","OTHER",6,{"id":45,"slug":46,"hasResults":11,"nctId":47,"briefTitle":48,"officialTitle":49,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":50,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":51,"maxAge":52,"enrollmentInfo":53,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":20,"phases":55,"briefSummary":56,"conditions":57,"keywords":59,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":32,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":65,"startDateStruct":66,"completionDateStruct":68,"leadSponsor":70,"locationsCount":71},"100559562","eeap-using-moses-20-technology-vs-the-thulium-fiber-laser-in-medium-large-prostates-100559562","NCT06565741","EEAP Using Moses 2.0 Technology vs the Thulium Fiber Laser in Medium-Large Prostates","Prospective and Randomized Analysis of Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation Using Moses 2.0 Technology Versus the New Thulium Fiber Laser in Medium and Large Prostates.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Males aged between 40 and 90 years.\n* Patients who, due to their lower urinary tract symptoms, are candidates for\n\nBPH surgery, including:\n\n* Obstructive urinary symptoms evaluated through IPSS with a score \\>7 and QoL \\> 2 or acute urinary reten on refractory to catheter removal.\n* Obstructive urinary flow evaluated through uroflowmetry with Qmax\\< 15 ml\u002Fs, obstruction demonstrated by pressure\u002Fflow study, prostatic origin haematuria refractory to medical treatment, or acute urinary retention refractory to catheter removal.\n\n  * Prostatic volume measured by transabdominal ultrasound, transrectal ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging of more than 80 cc.\n  * Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) \\< 4 ng\u002Fml, or with multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging reporting PIRADS \\< 3 or equal to 3 with PSA density \\< 15%.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Diagnosis, suspicion, or history of urethral stenosis or urethral surgery.\n* History of prostate surgery or pelvic radiotherapy.\n* Diagnosis or suspicion of prostate cancer or urothelial cancer.\n* Body mass index superior to 30.","40 Years","90 Years",{"count":54,"type":19},120,[22],"Introduction: Endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEAP) with lasers has emerged as an effective and less invasive surgical option compared to traditional methods. Among the various available laser options, Holmium laser and Thulium Fiber laser have stood out as two prominent approaches for performing endoscopic prostate enucleation. These technologies have 3 showcased their effectiveness in ablating prostatic tissue and improving urinary symptoms. Nevertheless, differences in their physical properties and modes of action may impact their success rates and clinical outcomes. In our institution it is standard practice to use one laser or the other according to their availability in the operating room.\n\nPrimary Objective: To demonstrate the superiority of MoLEP over ThuFLEP in terms of enucleation efficiency.\n\nSecondary Objectives: a) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of perioperative bleeding.\n\nb) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of postoperative hospital stay.\n\nc) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of ThuFLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of perioperative complications.\n\nd) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of improvement in urinary symptoms.\n\ne) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of improvement in flowmetric variables.\n\nStudy Type: Prospective, randomized, non-blind, multicentric clinical trial. Intervention: Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH via EEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or ThuFLEP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50 cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure.",[58,26,27],"Prostatic Hyperplasia",[60,61,30,62,63,64],"Medium and Large Prostates","Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation","Holmium laser","Thulium Fiber laser","Moses 2.0 Technology",{"date":34,"type":35},{"date":67,"type":35},"2024-09-03",{"date":69,"type":19},"2028-09",{"name":41,"class":42},3]