Prostate HyperplasiaNCT06649357
Comparison Between Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Moses Assisted Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate
A study testing MoLEP and BiTURP in people with Prostate Hyperplasia and Surgery, run by Fundacio Puigvert at 6 sites in Spain.
Trial summary
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… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age, men only
- Conditions the study is for
- Prostate Hyperplasia, Surgery, Endoscopic Anatomical Enucleation of the Prostate (EEAP)
- What is being tested?
- MoLEP and BiTURP
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 130 participants
- Where
- 6 sitesSpain
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2025to Nov 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- Men only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with maximum flow rate < 15 ml/sec before obstructive surgery or with maximum flow rate > 15 ml/sec and urodynamic study showing high-flow obstruction defined as bladder outlet obstruction index > 40.
- Patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Score between 8 and 35.
- Patients with a prostate volume between 40 and 80 cc, measured by urological ultrasound or MRI.
Who cannot join
- History of prior prostatic obstructive or urethral surgery.
- Diagnosis of prostate neoplasia.
- Diagnosis of urothelial neoplasia.
- Lack of flowmetry or IPSS data before surgery.
- Diagnosis or suspicion of hypo/acontractile detrusor before prostatic obstructive surgery.
- Diagnosis or suspicion of neurogenic bladder or neurological disease.
- History of pelvic radiation therapy.
Trial locations and contacts
6 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
6 sites in 1 country
Spain6 sites, 6 recruiting
- Recruiting
Fundacio Puigvert
Barcelona, BARCELONA, 08025
Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD, 0034934169700 ext. 4608, ischwartzm@fundacio-puigvert.es
Silvia Mateu, MD, 934169700 ext. 4602, smateu@fundacio-puigvert.es
- Recruiting
Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes
Gijón, Principality of Asturias, 33394
Rebeca Blanco Fernández, MD, 0034 985 18 50 00, rebecabfn@gmail.com
Rebeca Blanco Fernández, MD
- Not yet recruiting
Hospital Univesitari de Bellvitge
L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, BARCELONA, 08907
Andreu Alabat Roca, MD, 0034 932 60 75 00, Alband8989@gmail.com
Sergi Beato, MD, 0034 932 60 75 00
- Recruiting
Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecillas
Santander, Cantabria, 39008
Ester Fernández, MD, 0034 942 20 25 20, esterferguz@gmail.com
Ester Fernández, MD
- Recruiting
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela
Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, 15706
Pérez Fentes, MD, 0034 981 95 00 00, danielfentes@gmail.com
Lucía Mosquera, MD, 0034 981 95 00 00
- Recruiting
Hospital Universitario Río Hortega
Valladolid, Valladolid, 47012
Alejandro García Viña, MD, 0034 983 42 04 00, ax_gv@hotmail.com
Alejandro García Viña, MD
About this study
Official title: Comparison Between Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Moses Assisted Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study
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.
Sofware 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.
Read more
Primary Objective: To compare the hospital stay of patients of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Secondary objectives:
- To compare the surgical time of MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the bladder catheterization time aCer MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the postoperative complication rate patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
- To compare functional results of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
This study is a prospective multicentric randomized and controlled trial. The study compares two types of BPH surgery without changing standard medical practice.
The 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.
- The MoLEP group will receive surgical treatment with MoLEP.
- 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.
Read the detailed description
Introduction: The evolution of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has come a long way since Freyer described his technique of open adenomectomy over 100 years ago. The advancement of instruments and surgical techniques has made surgery increasingly les invasive. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) allowed endoscopic treatment of BPH and it is still regarded by many as the gold-standard for BPH surgical treatment. The application of Holmium laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the last 20 years has allowed for the surgical treatment of BPH through an endoscopic approach, practically without limitations in prostate size.
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.
However, the available studies often have short follow-up periods, most do not report on the surgeon's experience with HoLEP, and were based on early laser and morcellation technology. Sofware 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, resulting in shorter enucleation, haemostasis, and total surgical times for similar energy delivered. 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.
Hypothesis: MoLEP surgery is superior to Bi-TURP in terms of postoperative stay, bladder catheter duration, blood loss and transfusion rate, without significant functional outcomes, and retreatment rate, with no significant differences in surgical time.
Objectives:
Primary Objective: To compare the hospital stay of patients of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Secondary objectives:
- To compare the surgical time of MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the bladder catheterization time aCer MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the postoperative complication rate patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
- To compare functional results of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Study Design: This study is a prospective multicentric randomized and controlled trial. The study compares two types of BPH surgery without changing standard medical practice. The CONSORT guidelines for randomized clinical trials will be followed.
Participants: Patients who are candidates according to standard medical practice for BPH surgery with a prostate volume ≤ 80 cc measured by urological ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Intervention: The 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.
- The MoLEP group will receive surgical treatment with MoLEP.
- 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.
Surgery and Follow-up Schedule:
- Surgeries will be conducted between November 2024 and April 2025
- Initial 6-month follow-up. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Completion of the first phase of the study: April 2026.
- Second phase follow-up: 24 months. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Dissemination of results: 2 months. Completion of the second phase of the study: October 2027
- Third phase follow-up: 5 years. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Dissemination of results: 2 months. Completion of the third phase of the study: October 2030.
Sample size calculation was calculated based on length of hospital stay. Previous studies indicate that the mean days of hospital stay is around 2,5 days in patients with RTU. The length of hospital stay for patients with MoLEP may be at least 1 day less. Around 10% of patients are treated with antiplatelet agents. In order to perform an analysis according to patients with and without this treatment, the sample size will be increased by 10%. Accepting an alpha risk of 5% and a beta risk of 20% in a two-tailed test, a total of 130 patients are needed (65 in each study group). A common standard deviation of 1 day is assumed. A loss to follow-up rate of 12% has been also estimated.
Statistical Analysis: Qualitative variables will be described with absolute frequencies and percentages. The description of quantitative variables will be performed using the mean, standard deviation (SD), median and quartiles. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test will be used to assess the normality of distributions.
An initial bivariate intention to treat analysis will be performed in order to analyze potential differences according study groups. The relationship between two qualitative variables will be calculated using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test (frequency <5). Quantitative variables will be compared using the Student's t-test (Mann Whitney. For non-normal distributions), analysis of variance [ANOVA] (> 2 categories), linear regression test and Schea's multiple comparisons test. The linear relationship between the quantitative variables will be calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient or Spearman's rank correlation test (when variable not normally distributed). Changes at the end of follow up in the main outcomes will be analyzed by Wilcoxon nonparametric test in the case of quantitative variables. The McNemar test will be used for the comparison of categorical variables. A backward stepwise linear regression analysis will be performed in order to determine which factors are independently associated to higher length of hospital stay. Study groups and variables with a p value <0.2 in the univariate analysis will be included as independent variables. The results will be described with beta coefficient , 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values. For all the tests, p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The statistical package R Studio (V2.5.1) was used for the analyses.
Publications will be made with the results of the study, whether they are positive or negative. There will be at least 3 publication scheduled. This will be the results at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years of follow up.
- Being tested
- MoLEP, BiTURP
- Keywords
- Prostate hyperplasia, Surgery, Endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEAP)
- Medical subject headings
- Prostatic Hyperplasia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
MoLEPDevice
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 BiTURP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure.
BiTURPDevice
Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH viaEEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or BiTURP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| MoLEP | Active comparator | Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation Using Moses 2.0 Technology Pulse modulation technology in Moses 2.0applied to Holmium Laser Endoscopic Prostate (MoLEP). Receives: Device: MoLEP |
| BiTURP | Active comparator | Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Receives: Device: BiTURP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Postoperative hospital stay
Variation in length of hospital stay after each procedure. Difference in postoperative hospital stay time between MoLEP and BiTURP. Number of hours in the hospital after the procedure if finished, organized in the following categories: Outpatient procedure (less than 16 hours), 1 day of hospitalization (≤ 24 hours), 2 days of hospitalization (≤ 48 hours), 3 days of hospitalization (≤ 72 hours). Individual length of stay will be recorded).
Measured: From date and time of end of surgery to date and time of hospital discharge assessed up to 1 month
Secondary outcomes (5)
SURGICAL TIME
Difference in surgical time between MoLEP and BiTURP in prostates larger than 80 cc.
Measured: Total time of Surgery procedure
The bladder catheterization time
Difference in the bladder catheterization time after MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP
Measured: Total time of bladder catheterization procedure
Perioperative complications
Difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between MoLEP and ThuFLEP. All possible complications will berecorded and classifi ed according to the Clavien- Dindo scale from date of surgery to end of study.
Measured: From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
TREATMENT
Variation in treatment efficacy between groups. Difference in improvement after MoLEP compared to BiTURP
Measured: From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
Urinary symptoms
Incidence of additional treatment requirement for lower urinary tract symptoms after the treatment. Difference in improvement of urinary symptoms after MoLEP compared to BiTRUP. IPSS questionnaire will be performed in all study visits: Changes in total score and quality of life score before and after surgery will be compared between patients undergoing MoLEP and BiTURP.
Measured: From date of enrollment to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Oct 2024
- Study start1 Apr 2025
- Primary completionNov 2030 (estimated)
- Study completionNov 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Prostate HyperplasiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Patients who are candidates according to standard medical practice for BPH surgery with a prostate volume ≤ 80 cc measured by urological ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or Bi-TURP.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 130 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Fundacio Puigvert
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ivan Schwartzmann, MD, Fundacio Puigvert
- Investigators
- Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD, Principal investigator, Fundacio Puigvert
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06649357
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- C2024 35
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 17 Oct 2024
- Last updated
- 29 Apr 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Publications will be made with the results of the study, whether they are positive or negative. There will be at least 3 publications scheduled. This will be the results at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years of follow up.
Publications
Stout TE, Borofsky M, Soubra A. A Visual Scale for Improving Communication When Describing Gross Hematuria. Urology. 2021 Feb;148:32-36. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.054. Epub 2020 Dec 5.
PubMed 33285214Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. Epub 2010 Mar 24.
PubMed 20335313Dowd K, ElMansy H, Sharour W, Kotb A, Shaver C, El Tayeb MM. Wolf Piranha vs Storz Prostate Morcellation Devices: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study. J Endourol. 2021 Nov;35(11):1671-1674. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0541.
PubMed 34128395Gauhar V, Gilling P, Pirola GM, Chan VW, Lim EJ, Maggi M, Teoh JY, Krambeck A, Castellani D. Does MOSES Technology Enhance the Efficiency and Outcomes of Standard Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate? Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Sep;8(5):1362-1369. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
PubMed 35105516Zhang Y, Yuan P, Ma D, Gao X, Wei C, Liu Z, Li R, Wang S, Liu J, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of enucleation vs. resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):493-508. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0135-4. Epub 2019 Feb 28.
PubMed 30816336Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2008 Jan;53(1):160-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036. Epub 2007 Aug 28.
PubMed 17869409Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Colombo R, Cestari A, Briganti A, Mazzoccoli B, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol. 2006 Sep;50(3):563-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.003. Epub 2006 May 2.
PubMed 16713070Gravas S, Gacci M, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, Karavitakis M, Kyriazis I, Malde S, Mamoulakis C, Rieken M, Sakalis VI, Schouten N, Speakman MJ, Tikkinen KAO, Cornu JN. Summary Paper on the 2023 European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Management of Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Eur Urol. 2023 Aug;84(2):207-222. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.008. Epub 2023 May 17.
PubMed 37202311Freyer PJ. A New Method of Performing Perineal Prostatectomy. Br Med J. 1900 Mar 24;1(2047):698-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.2047.698-a. No abstract available.
PubMed 20758920
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Apr 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison Between Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Moses Assisted Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06649357
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- C2024 35
- Keywords
- Prostate hyperplasia, Surgery, Endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEAP)
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 130 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Fundacio PuigvertUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Nov 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Nov 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 18 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Sofware 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.
Primary Objective: To compare the hospital stay of patients of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Secondary objectives:
- To compare the surgical time of MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the bladder catheterization time aCer MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the postoperative complication rate patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
- To compare functional results of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
This study is a prospective multicentric randomized and controlled trial. The study compares two types of BPH surgery without changing standard medical practice.
The 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.
- The MoLEP group will receive surgical treatment with MoLEP.
- 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.
Detailed description
Introduction: The evolution of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has come a long way since Freyer described his technique of open adenomectomy over 100 years ago. The advancement of instruments and surgical techniques has made surgery increasingly les invasive. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) allowed endoscopic treatment of BPH and it is still regarded by many as the gold-standard for BPH surgical treatment. The application of Holmium laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the last 20 years has allowed for the surgical treatment of BPH through an endoscopic approach, practically without limitations in prostate size.
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.
However, the available studies often have short follow-up periods, most do not report on the surgeon's experience with HoLEP, and were based on early laser and morcellation technology. Sofware 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, resulting in shorter enucleation, haemostasis, and total surgical times for similar energy delivered. 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.
Hypothesis: MoLEP surgery is superior to Bi-TURP in terms of postoperative stay, bladder catheter duration, blood loss and transfusion rate, without significant functional outcomes, and retreatment rate, with no significant differences in surgical time.
Objectives:
Primary Objective: To compare the hospital stay of patients of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Secondary objectives:
- To compare the surgical time of MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the bladder catheterization time aCer MoLEP with that of Bi-TURP.
- To compare the postoperative complication rate patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
- To compare functional results of patients undergoing MoLEP with those undergoing Bi-TURP.
Study Design: This study is a prospective multicentric randomized and controlled trial. The study compares two types of BPH surgery without changing standard medical practice. The CONSORT guidelines for randomized clinical trials will be followed.
Participants: Patients who are candidates according to standard medical practice for BPH surgery with a prostate volume ≤ 80 cc measured by urological ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Intervention: The 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.
- The MoLEP group will receive surgical treatment with MoLEP.
- 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.
Surgery and Follow-up Schedule:
- Surgeries will be conducted between November 2024 and April 2025
- Initial 6-month follow-up. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Completion of the first phase of the study: April 2026.
- Second phase follow-up: 24 months. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Dissemination of results: 2 months. Completion of the second phase of the study: October 2027
- Third phase follow-up: 5 years. Database construction and refinement: 2 months. Statistical analysis: 2 months. Preparation of the final report: 2 months. Dissemination of results: 2 months. Completion of the third phase of the study: October 2030.
Sample size calculation was calculated based on length of hospital stay. Previous studies indicate that the mean days of hospital stay is around 2,5 days in patients with RTU. The length of hospital stay for patients with MoLEP may be at least 1 day less. Around 10% of patients are treated with antiplatelet agents. In order to perform an analysis according to patients with and without this treatment, the sample size will be increased by 10%. Accepting an alpha risk of 5% and a beta risk of 20% in a two-tailed test, a total of 130 patients are needed (65 in each study group). A common standard deviation of 1 day is assumed. A loss to follow-up rate of 12% has been also estimated.
Statistical Analysis: Qualitative variables will be described with absolute frequencies and percentages. The description of quantitative variables will be performed using the mean, standard deviation (SD), median and quartiles. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test will be used to assess the normality of distributions.
An initial bivariate intention to treat analysis will be performed in order to analyze potential differences according study groups. The relationship between two qualitative variables will be calculated using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test (frequency <5). Quantitative variables will be compared using the Student's t-test (Mann Whitney. For non-normal distributions), analysis of variance [ANOVA] (> 2 categories), linear regression test and Schea's multiple comparisons test. The linear relationship between the quantitative variables will be calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient or Spearman's rank correlation test (when variable not normally distributed). Changes at the end of follow up in the main outcomes will be analyzed by Wilcoxon nonparametric test in the case of quantitative variables. The McNemar test will be used for the comparison of categorical variables. A backward stepwise linear regression analysis will be performed in order to determine which factors are independently associated to higher length of hospital stay. Study groups and variables with a p value <0.2 in the univariate analysis will be included as independent variables. The results will be described with beta coefficient , 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values. For all the tests, p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The statistical package R Studio (V2.5.1) was used for the analyses.
Publications will be made with the results of the study, whether they are positive or negative. There will be at least 3 publication scheduled. This will be the results at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years of follow up.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Patients who are candidates according to standard medical practice for BPH surgery with a prostate volume ≤ 80 cc measured by urological ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or Bi-TURP.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| MoLEP | Active comparator | Device: MoLEPEndoscopic Prostate Enucleation Using Moses 2.0 Technology Pulse modulation technology in Moses 2.0applied to Holmium Laser Endoscopic Prostate (MoLEP). |
| BiTURP | Active comparator | Device: BiTURPBipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients with maximum flow rate < 15 ml/sec before obstructive surgery or with maximum flow rate > 15 ml/sec and urodynamic study showing high-flow obstruction defined as bladder outlet obstruction index > 40.
- Patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) according to the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Score between 8 and 35.
- Patients with a prostate volume between 40 and 80 cc, measured by urological ultrasound or MRI.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- History of prior prostatic obstructive or urethral surgery.
- Diagnosis of prostate neoplasia.
- Diagnosis of urothelial neoplasia.
- Lack of flowmetry or IPSS data before surgery.
- Diagnosis or suspicion of hypo/acontractile detrusor before prostatic obstructive surgery.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| MoLEPPatients 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 BiTURP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure. | Device | MoLEP |
| BiTURPPatients with an indication for surgery for BPH viaEEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or BiTURP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure. | Device | BiTURP |
Primary outcome
Postoperative hospital stay
Time frame: From date and time of end of surgery to date and time of hospital discharge assessed up to 1 month
Variation in length of hospital stay after each procedure. Difference in postoperative hospital stay time between MoLEP and BiTURP. Number of hours in the hospital after the procedure if finished, organized in the following categories: Outpatient procedure (less than 16 hours), 1 day of hospitalization (≤ 24 hours), 2 days of hospitalization (≤ 48 hours), 3 days of hospitalization (≤ 72 hours). Individual length of stay will be recorded).
5 secondary outcomes
SURGICAL TIME
Time frame: Total time of Surgery procedure
The bladder catheterization time
Time frame: Total time of bladder catheterization procedure
Perioperative complications
Time frame: From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
TREATMENT
Time frame: From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
Urinary symptoms
Time frame: From date of enrollment to date of the end of follow-up 5 years
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Apr 2026.
- Background: PubMed 33285214Stout TE, Borofsky M, Soubra A. A Visual Scale for Improving Communication When Describing Gross Hematuria. Urology. 2021 Feb;148:32-36. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.054. Epub 2020 Dec 5.
- Background: PubMed 20335313Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. Epub 2010 Mar 24.
- Background: PubMed 34128395Dowd K, ElMansy H, Sharour W, Kotb A, Shaver C, El Tayeb MM. Wolf Piranha vs Storz Prostate Morcellation Devices: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study. J Endourol. 2021 Nov;35(11):1671-1674. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0541.
- Background: PubMed 35105516Gauhar V, Gilling P, Pirola GM, Chan VW, Lim EJ, Maggi M, Teoh JY, Krambeck A, Castellani D. Does MOSES Technology Enhance the Efficiency and Outcomes of Standard Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate? Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Sep;8(5):1362-1369. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
- Background: PubMed 30816336Zhang Y, Yuan P, Ma D, Gao X, Wei C, Liu Z, Li R, Wang S, Liu J, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of enucleation vs. resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):493-508. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0135-4. Epub 2019 Feb 28.
- Background: PubMed 17869409Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2008 Jan;53(1):160-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036. Epub 2007 Aug 28.
- Background: PubMed 16713070Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Colombo R, Cestari A, Briganti A, Mazzoccoli B, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol. 2006 Sep;50(3):563-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.003. Epub 2006 May 2.
- Background: PubMed 37202311Gravas S, Gacci M, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, Karavitakis M, Kyriazis I, Malde S, Mamoulakis C, Rieken M, Sakalis VI, Schouten N, Speakman MJ, Tikkinen KAO, Cornu JN. Summary Paper on the 2023 European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Management of Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Eur Urol. 2023 Aug;84(2):207-222. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.008. Epub 2023 May 17.
- Background: PubMed 20758920Freyer PJ. A New Method of Performing Perineal Prostatectomy. Br Med J. 1900 Mar 24;1(2047):698-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.2047.698-a. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Publications will be made with the results of the study, whether they are positive or negative. There will be at least 3 publications scheduled. This will be the results at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years of follow up.
Related trials for Prostate Hyperplasia
Recruiting
Clinical Study on Prostate Thermal Vapor Ablation Guided by MRI/TRUS Fusion Imaging
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Standard Versus Double Alpha Blockers Treatment for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Obstruction
BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia)
RecruitingObservational study
ProVIDE Studies Post Exit Analysis
BPH With Symptomatic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Recruiting
Learning Curve of Tri-lobar HoLEP Versus En-bloc HoLEP
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia With Outflow Obstruction
RecruitingObservational study
Impact of Long-term Dutasteride Use on Perioperative Outcomes of HoLEP
Prostatic Hyperplasia, Benign
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD principal investigator
Fundacio Puigvert
6 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing MoLEP and BiTURP in people with Prostate Hyperplasia and Surgery, run by Fundacio Puigvert at 6 sites in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Apr 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 6 sites in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD (0034934169700 ext. 4608, ischwartzm@fundacio-puigvert.es), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Postoperative hospital stay (time frame: From date and time of end of surgery to date and time of hospital discharge assessed up to 1 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06649357, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Apr 2026.