Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MOSES™ pulse modulation technology versus conventional pulse delivery technology: the effect on irrigation fluid temperature during flexible ureteroscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the effect of MOSES™ modulation technology to conventional pulse delivery technology on the irrigation fluid temperature (IFT) under different irrigation conditions during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in a live-anesthetized porcine model. For this experiment was used one female pig. A percutaneous access was obtained and a 30Fr sheath was placed inside the upper calyceal system. A thermocouple was inserted through the sheath to the upper calyx to record the effect on IFT during FURS. A Lumenis 120H Ho:YAG laser was used and the IFT was recorded during laser activation for 30 s at a laser power of 20 W, 40 W and 60 W under gravity and manual pump irrigation using MOSES™ and conventional pulse delivery technology. In the highest power settings the maximum IFT was achieved in 18 s under gravity irrigation (66.4 °C). It seems that there is no significant difference on IFT between MOSES and conventional mode on the IFT under different irrigation conditions during FURS at 20 W, 40 W and 60 W power settings. Furthermore, our results indicate that under manual pumping even high-power settings (40 W, 60 W) can be performed with safety. In the in vivo model, the MOSES™ pulse delivery technology does not have a significant difference in the maximal IFT in comparison to conventional pulse delivery technology during FURS in the same power settings. Manual pumping should be used to keep the IFT within safe limits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FURS:

Flexible ureteroscopy

IFT:

Irrigation fluid temperature

Ho:YAG:

Holmium: yttrium–aluminum-garnet

UAS:

Ureteral access sheath

References

  1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU Guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker B, Gross AJ, Netsch C (2019) Ho: YaG laser lithotripsy: recent innovations. Curr Opin Urol 29(2):103–107. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, Andonian S (2017) Use of the Moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes: a preclinical study. J Endourol 31(6):598–604. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0050

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. van Rhoon GC, Samaras T, Yarmolenko PS, Dewhirst MW, Neufeld E, Kuster N (2013) CEM43°C thermal dose thresholds: a potential guide for magnetic resonance radiofrequency exposure levels? Eur Radiol 23(8):2215–2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2825-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. He X, McGee S, Coad JE, Schmidlin F, Iaizzo PA, Swanlund DJ, Kluge S, Rudie E, Bischof JC (2004) Investigation of the thermal and tissue injury behaviour in microwave thermal therapy using a porcine kidney model. Int J Hyperth 20(6):567–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/0265673042000209770

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liang H, Liang L, Yu Y, Huang B, Jn C, Wang C, Zhu Z, Liang X (2020) Thermal effect of holmium laser during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. BMC Urol 20(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00639-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Winship B, Wollin D, Carlos E, Peters C, Li J, Terry R, Boydston K, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME (2019) The rise and fall of high temperatures during ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 33(10):794–799. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hein S, Petzold R, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Müller PF, Schoenthaler M, Miernik A (2020) Thermal effects of Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 38(3):753–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02808-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kallidonis P, Kamal W, Panagopoulos V, Vasilas M, Amanatides L, Kyriazis I, Vrettos T, Fligou F, Liatsikos E (2016) Thulium laser in the upper urinary tract: does the heat generation in the irrigation fluid pose a risk? Evidence from an in vivo experimental study. J Endourol 30(5):555–559. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Noureldin YA, Farsari E, Ntasiotis P, Adamou C, Vagionis A, Vrettos T, Liatsikos EN, Kallidonis P (2021) Effects of irrigation parameters and access sheath size on the intra-renal temperature during flexible ureteroscopy with a high-power laser. World J Urol 39(4):1257–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03287-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guzelburc V, Balasar M, Colakogullari M, Guven S, Kandemir A, Ozturk A, Karaaslan P, Erkurt B, Albayrak S (2016) Comparison of absorbed irrigation fluid volumes during retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of kidney stones larger than 2 cm. Springerplus 5(1):1707. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3383-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stenberg A, Bohman SO, Morsing P, Müller-Suur C, Olsen L, Persson AE (1988) Back-leak of pelvic urine to the bloodstream. Acta Physiol Scand 134(2):223–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1988.tb08483.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece

    Angelis Peteinaris, Solon Faitatziadis, Arman Tsaturyan, Konstantinos Pagonis, Evangelos Liatsikos & Panagiotis Kallidonis

  2. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Evangelos Liatsikos

  3. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia

    Evangelos Liatsikos

Authors
  1. Angelis Peteinaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Solon Faitatziadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arman Tsaturyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Konstantinos Pagonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evangelos Liatsikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Panagiotis Kallidonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panagiotis Kallidonis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Research involving animals

Ethics approval was obtained from the related state services and one female pig approximately 30 kg was used.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peteinaris, A., Faitatziadis, S., Tsaturyan, A. et al. MOSES™ pulse modulation technology versus conventional pulse delivery technology: the effect on irrigation fluid temperature during flexible ureteroscopy. Urolithiasis 50, 613–618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01342-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01342-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation