Search

Abstract 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.

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is known to have a steep learning curve. The top-down technique was introduced to lessen the number of procedures required to master HoLEP. We aimed to present the experiences of two successive clinical fellows with the top-down HoLEP learning curve and compare their performance with the supervisor. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 40 patients who underwent top-down HoLEP performed by two successive fellows at our institution from September 2020 to November 2022. Before data collection, each learner observed three top-down HoLEP procedures and assisted with seven additional cases before independently performing top-down HoLEP under supervision. We collected data from each fellow’s first 20 consecutive top-down HoLEP procedures. The learners’ cases were grouped according to chronological order (Cases 1-10 and 11-20). The primary outcome was defined as the number of cases before the fellow could independently complete all steps of top-down HoLEP without any major intraoperative complications. The secondary outcomes included the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of both groups. The fellows’ 40 cumulative cases were then compared against retrospective data from 148 procedures conducted by their supervisor. Results: There were no significant differences in patient demographics for both clinical fellows. Each learner performed the first 20 cases independently without needing the supervisor to intervene. No major intraoperative complications were recorded, and there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between fellows’ cases. There was a statistically significant difference between the fellows and their supervisor in terms of operative efficiency and enucleation efficiency (p < 0.001). We did not find a significant difference between the fellows and the supervisor regarding intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, or postoperative subjective and objective parameters. Conclusions: Top-down HoLEP shows promising and reproducible results in shortening HoLEP’s learning curve. Larger comparative and multi-institutional studies are warranted.