WATER vs WATER II 3-Year Update: Comparing Aquablation Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in 30-80 cc and 80-150 cc Prostates

Waterjet ablation therapy vs. urethral-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large prostate volumes (>80 mL): results of a retrospective multicentric series according to the standardized BPH6 achievement

BACKGROUND

The introduction of minimally invasive techniques for BPH treatment aimed to balance de-obstruction with maintenance of ejaculatory function. The aim of this multicentric series was to compare outcomes of waterjet ablation therapy (WAT) versus urethral-sparing robot assisted simple prostatectomy (us-RASP) for large prostate volumes (PV>80 mL) according to BPH-6 metric.

METHODS

Four institutional BPH datasets were matched and queried for "PV>80 mL" (N.=86), "WAT" (Group A; N.=42) and "us-RASP" (Group B; N.=44). Baseline, perioperative and functional data according to BPH6 composite endpoint were compared between groups. Differences between continuous variables were assessed with t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test depending on their normal or not normal distribution, while Chi-square Test was used for categorical data. A two-sided P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Patients treated with WAT showed lower preoperative PSA median values (3.5 vs. 7.07 ng/mL) (P<0.05). Regarding perioperative outcomes, patients treated with us-RASP revealed increased median operative time (110 vs. 70 mins), prolonged bladder irrigation time (24 vs. 37.2 hours), longer median hospital stay (5 vs. 4 days), respectively (all P<0.05). At a median follow-up of 43.7 months (IQR 33.8-49.7), the BPH6 achievement rate was comparable between groups (54.7% vs. 56.8%; P=0.964). In the WAT series 1-year ejaculatory dysfunction rate was 19.1% while in the us-RASP cohort was 13.6%, respectively (P=0.21). Retrospective design and the lack of a propensity-score matching represent main limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to us-RASP, WAT showed comparable symptom relief and ejaculatory function preservation for prostate gland >80 mL with benefit in terms of main perioperative outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

Aquablation Compared with Simple Prostatectomy for Prostate Volumes >80 Grams

Introduction and Objectives: Aquablation (Aqua) is a novel technique for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. This study compares Aqua to simple prostatectomy (SP), analyzing functional urinary outcomes, adverse events (AE), and retreatment rates. Methods: A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted for men undergoing open/robotic SP or Aqua from 2017 to 2023 for prostates >80 mL. Data collected included blood transfusions, AE, retreatment rates, postoperative medication use, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) with quality-of-life (QOL) indicator. To address differences in baseline characteristics, including prostate size, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.4.0. Results are presented as IPTW-adjusted comparing SP to Aqua using Fischer's exact test and analysis of variance reported as beta (B) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for categorical variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In total, 172 patients were studied: 111 Aqua and 61 SP. Groups were well-matched for body mass index (Aqua 28.77 vs SP 28). Aqua patients were older (73.04 vs 68.89), had smaller prostates (135.46 vs 186.53 mL), and lower preoperative urinary retention (21.8% vs 47.5%). Baseline characteristics between groups were adjusted using IPTW. SP outperformed Aqua in 1-year IPSS scores (B = -3.4, CI: -5.7, -1.1, p = 0.005), whereas QOL was comparable (B = -0.46, CI: -1.3, 0.33, p = 0.2). SP patients continued alpha-blockers less often postoperatively (B = -0.27, CI: -0.39, -0.41, p = 0.001). SP showed higher blood transfusion rates (OR = 4.22, CI: 1.64, 13.2, p = 0.006), longer hospital stays (B = 1.7, CI: 1.0, 2.4, p < 0.001), and longer operating times (B = 119, CI: 101, 135, p < 0.001). SP had lower retreatment rates (OR = 0.46, CI: 0.23, 0.87, p = 0.019). AE were not significantly different (p = 0.8). Conclusions: Aqua outperformed SP for blood transfusions, hospital stay, and operative time. SP outperformed Aqua for retreatment rates, IPSS scores at 1-year follow-up, and reliance on alpha-blockers.

Does size matter? A single institution's comparison of Aquablation in prostates greater than or less than 150 mL

BACKGROUND

Surgical management options for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hypertension have remained limited in prostates of large volume. The advent of the Aquablation has created a potential minimally invasive option for treatment in prostates of all volumes. Thus, this study aims to evaluate outcomes and complications of Aquablation in clinical practice based on prostate volume.

METHODS

Collected variables included adverse events with Clavien-Dindo classifications, transfusion rates, surgical retreatment rates, continued medication use postoperatively, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) with Quality-of-Life indicator. Aquablations were stratified by preoperative prostate volume.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four men were included in the study. The average postop decrease in IPSS was 10.28, with a 2.02 point decrease in Quality-of-Life at 1 year. Postop increase in peak urinary flow rate was 7.65 mL/s for an average of 16.44 mL/s. Hemoglobin drop average was 1.78 g/dL, but only 2.3% of patients required a transfusion. 12.9% of patients required surgical retreatment. Six months after Aquablation, 22.9% and 12.9% of patients continued taking Alpha-blockers and Androgen receptor inhibitors, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 33 patients (19.0%). Eighteen patients were excluded from secondary analysis due to unrecorded prostate volume, leaving 123 with volumes <150 mL and 33 with volumes ≥150 mL. Groups were comparable with respect to length of stay, adverse events, blood transfusion, IPSS with Quality-of-Life indicator preoperative and postoperative, postop peak urinary flow, and postop alpha-blocker use. Larger prostates had a higher rate of adverse events, retreatment, postop hemoglobin drop, and postop use of finasteride.

CONCLUSIONS

Aquablation is a viable treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Efficacy, safety, subjective outcomes, and adverse event rates were not impacted by prostate volume. However, size does matter as prostates ≥150 mL had higher surgical retreatment rates and postop finasteride use.

Combination Prostatic Artery Embolization Prior to Water-Jet Ablation (Aquablation) for Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy: A Propensity Score Analysis

Objectives: To compare post-operative bleeding measures in patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization (PAE) prior to water-jet ablation (aquablation) vs. water-jet ablation alone. Methods: A retrospective review identified 145 patients treated with water-jet ablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia from December 2018 to June 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: water-jet ablation alone (n = 56) vs. pre-operative PAE and water-jet ablation (n = 89). Patient demographics, pertinent laboratory values, operative reports, and hospital courses were reviewed. Results: PAE was technically successful in all patients (n = 89), and all 89 patients underwent successful water-jet ablation within a median time of 2 days. Compared to water-jet ablation alone, pre-operative PAE resulted in a significant reduction in post-operative bleeding as measured via lower rates of continuous bladder irrigation, hemostatic measures, and hematuria. Pre-operative PAE was also associated with lower rates of post-operative urinary retention (odds ratio 17, p = 0.02) and less likely to require reoperation 30 days after the procedure (p = 0.003). There were no major PAE-related adverse events reported in the combination arm. Conclusions: Compared to water-jet ablation alone, pre-operative PAE resulted in fewer bleeding-related complications and urinary retention.

WATER versus WATER II 5-year update: Comparing Aquablation therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in 30-80-cm3 and 80-150-cm3 prostates

Objective

This study aims to compare the long-term outcomes of Aquablation for small-to-moderate (30-80 cm3) prostates with the outcomes for large (80-150 cm3) prostates at 5-year follow up.

Methods

The Waterjet Ablation Therapy for Endoscopic Resection of Prostate Tissue (WATER; NCT02505919) is a prospective, double-blind, international clinical trial encompassing 116 patients, examining Aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for LUTS/BPH in prostates sized between 30 and 80 cm3. In parallel, WATER II (W-II; NCT03123250), a prospective, multicentre, single-arm international clinical trial, explores Aquablation outcomes in prostates ranging from 80 to 150 cm3. Baseline parameters and 60-month outcomes were scrutinized using statistical analyses, including Students' t test, Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables, and Fisher's test for binary variables.

Results

There is a significant improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) from baseline to 60 months in both WATER (22.9 to 7.0) and WATER II (23.2 to 6.8) (P = 0.852). Urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased in both groups from baseline to 60 months (WATER: 9.4 to 17.3 cc/s; WATER II: 8.7 to 17.1 cc/s) (P = 0.933). Immediate and sustained enhancements were observed in IPSS and Qmax. At 5 years, a notable percentage of patients in both groups were BPH medication-free (WATER: 99%; WATER II: 94%) (P = 0.0517) and free from surgical retreatment (WATER: 95%; WATER II: 97%) (P = 0.508).

Conclusions

The 5-year follow-up affirms that Aquablation therapy exhibits sustained outcomes, minimal irreversible complications, and low retreatment rates for treating LUTS/BPH, irrespective of prostate volume ranging from 30 to 150 cm3.

Ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A review of Aquablation, Rezum, and transperineal laser prostate ablation

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common diseases affecting men and can present with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Historically, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been considered the gold standard in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH. However, TURP and other traditional options for the surgical management of LUTS secondary to BPH are associated with high rates of sexual dysfunction. In the past decade, several novel technologies, including Aquablation therapy, convective water vapor therapy (Rezum), and transperineal prostate laser ablation (TPLA), have demonstrated promising evidence to be safe and effective while preserving sexual function.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss three ablative minimally invasive surgeries: Aquablation, Rezum, and TPLA. We review their techniques, safety, as well as perioperative and functional outcomes. We go into further detail regarding sexual function after these ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies.

RESULTS

Aquablation is a surgeon-guided, robot-executed, heat-free ablative waterjet procedure with sustained functional outcomes at 5 years while having no effect on sexual activity. Rezum is an innovative office-based, minimally invasive surgical option for BPH that delivers convective water vapor energy into prostate adenoma to ablate obstructing tissue. Rezum leads to significant improvements in Qmax, IPSS while preserving sexual function. TPLA is another office-based technology which uses a diode laser source to produce thermoablation. It leads to improvement in Qmax, IPSS, and QoL while preserving ejaculatory function.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies have demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy profiles while preserving sexual function. These modalities should be discussed with patients to ensure informed and shared decision-making. Ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies may be particularly interesting to patients who value the preservation of their sexual function.

Outcomes of Aquablation in Men With Acute and Chronic Urinary Retention

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of Aquablation in men with acute and chronic urinary retention.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all men undergoing Aquablation resection of the prostate between May 2021 and August 2022. Men were classified as having acute urinary retention if they required either intermittent or indwelling catheter and chronic urinary retention if they had a postvoid residual >300 mL prior to surgery. We compared success rates and time to passage of trial without catheter as well as complication rates to those with no retention.

RESULTS

A total of 113 men underwent Aquablation including 28 with acute retention and 16 with chronic retention. Failure of initial void trial was significantly higher in patients with preoperative urinary retention (40%) and chronic retention with postvoid residual >300 mL (12.5%) compared to those with no retention (7.2%, P < .001). Among men with acute and chronic retention 98% were voiding spontaneously at a mean 5months follow-up. There was no difference in utilization of postoperative prostate medications, complications, International Prostate Symptom Score or uroflowmetry among men with acute, chronic, or no retention.

CONCLUSION

Aquablation is an effective method for treatment of men with urinary retention, with 98% achieving spontaneous voiding regardless of preoperative urodynamic findings. Men in acute retention prior to surgery were more likely to fail their initial void trial, which may support the recommendation for a delayed trial without catheter.

Six novel minimally invasive therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms in men. When drug treatment is ineffective or conventional surgery is not suitable, novel minimally invasive therapies can be considered. These include prostatic urethral lift, prostatic artery embolisation, water vapor thermal therapy, Aquablation-image guided robotic waterjet ablation, temporary implantable nitinol device and prostatic stents. These novel therapies can be performed in outpatient setting under local anesthesia, with shorter operative and recovery times, and better protection of ejaculatory function and erectile function. General conditions of the patient and advantages and disadvantages of the each of these therapies should be fully considered to make individualized plans.

Pharmacotherapy vs. minimally invasive therapies as initial therapy for moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Recently, minimally invasive therapies (MITs), such as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) have become an alternative to surgery or pharmacotherapy to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), offering symptom relief with a favorable safety profile. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of MITs (WVTT and PUL) compared to pharmacotherapy as initial treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe BPH.

METHODS

In this model-based economic evaluation we simulated BPH progression in men (mean age 65 years, average International Prostate Symptom Score 16.6) over their lifetime and estimated healthcare costs (from the US public payer perspective) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), discounted at 3% annually. Various clinical scenarios were evaluated given that most men undergo several lifelong therapies up to surgical intervention and potentially thereafter. As such, in the study model men could receive up to three lines of therapy: (1) initial pharmacotherapy with MIT as second-line, and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or pharmacotherapy as third-line; (2) initial MIT (WVTT or PUL) with MIT again, TURP or pharmacotherapy as second-line, and TURP as third-line. Model was populated using data from the published literature. Probabilistic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Initial treatment with WVTT led to the highest QALYs (13.05) and the lowest cost ($15,461). The cumulative QALYs and lifetime costs were 12.92 QALYs and $20,280 for pharmacotherapy followed by WVTT, 12.87 QALYs and $22,424 for pharmacotherapy followed by PUL, 12.86 QALYs and $20,930 for initial treatment with PUL. In the cost-utility analysis, WVTT as initial treatment dominated all three strategies, i.e., generated more QALYs at a lower cost.

CONCLUSION

WVTT is an effective and cost-saving procedure, and may be an appropriate first-line alternative to pharmacotherapy for moderate-to-severe BPH patients who seek faster improvement and no lifelong commitment to daily medications.