Gautier Müllhaupt1, Annette Enzler-Tschudy2, Katarina Horg2, Lukas Bubendorf3, Manolis Pratsinis4, Hans-Peter Schmid4, Dominik Abt4. 1. Department of Urology, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital, Klinik für Urologie, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. gautier.muellhaupt@kssg.ch. 2. Department of Pathology, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital, Klinik für Urologie, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the histological validity of the tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostatic tissue of 12 patients that consecutively underwent aquablation for benign prostatic enlargement was systematically examined. Histological examination was performed by two experienced uropathologists using a digital slide scanner and slide viewer software (Pannoramic 250 and Case Viewer 2.3, 3D Histech, Hungary). The surface areas of the assessable glands were examined and set in relation to the total surface area of the material available for histology and to the patient's total prostate volume. Examinations were performed analogously in ten consecutive patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to facilitate interpretation of the results. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A median of 4.06% (range 1.43-7.5%) of the preoperative total prostate volume (median 64.5 ml (range 40-80 ml)) was obtained for histological examination by aquablation. Due to severe mechanical destruction and fragmentation, only a proportion of 0.43% (0.06-1.79%) of this tissue represented histologically assessable glands. Therefore, roughly 0.017% of the total prostatic volume was available for a reliable histological examination. In comparison, 32.5% (6.67-37.5%) of the total prostate volume was removed by TURP and 22.86% (7.45-40.57%) of this tissue represented informative prostatic glands, corresponding to 7.43% of the total prostate volume. CONCLUSION: Histological significance of the tissue obtained by aquablation of the prostate is very limited. Costs and effort of the histological examination must, therefore, be weighed critically against the limited informative value.
PURPOSE: To determine the histological validity of the tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostatic tissue of 12 patients that consecutively underwent aquablation for benign prostatic enlargement was systematically examined. Histological examination was performed by two experienced uropathologists using a digital slide scanner and slide viewer software (Pannoramic 250 and Case Viewer 2.3, 3D Histech, Hungary). The surface areas of the assessable glands were examined and set in relation to the total surface area of the material available for histology and to the patient's total prostate volume. Examinations were performed analogously in ten consecutive patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to facilitate interpretation of the results. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A median of 4.06% (range 1.43-7.5%) of the preoperative total prostate volume (median 64.5 ml (range 40-80 ml)) was obtained for histological examination by aquablation. Due to severe mechanical destruction and fragmentation, only a proportion of 0.43% (0.06-1.79%) of this tissue represented histologically assessable glands. Therefore, roughly 0.017% of the total prostatic volume was available for a reliable histological examination. In comparison, 32.5% (6.67-37.5%) of the total prostate volume was removed by TURP and 22.86% (7.45-40.57%) of this tissue represented informative prostatic glands, corresponding to 7.43% of the total prostate volume. CONCLUSION: Histological significance of the tissue obtained by aquablation of the prostate is very limited. Costs and effort of the histological examination must, therefore, be weighed critically against the limited informative value.
Authors: Peter Gilling; Neil Barber; Mohamed Bidair; Paul Anderson; Mark Sutton; Tev Aho; Eugene Kramolowsky; Andrew Thomas; Barrett Cowan; Ronald P Kaufman; Andrew Trainer; Andrew Arther; Gopal Badlani; Mark Plante; Mihir Desai; Leo Doumanian; Alexis E Te; Mark DeGuenther; Claus Roehrborn Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Harris E Foster; Philipp Dahm; Tobias S Kohler; Lori B Lerner; J Kellogg Parsons; Timothy J Wilt; Kevin T McVary Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mihir Desai; Mo Bidair; Naeem Bhojani; Andrew Trainer; Andrew Arther; Eugene Kramolowsky; Leo Doumanian; Dean Elterman; Ronald P Kaufman; James Lingeman; Amy Krambeck; Gregg Eure; Gopal Badlani; Mark Plante; Edward Uchio; Greg Gin; Larry Goldenberg; Ryan Paterson; Alan So; Mitch Humphreys; Claus Roehrborn; Steven Kaplan; Jay Motola; Kevin C Zorn Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-06-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Richard Zigeuner; Luigi Schips; Katja Lipsky; Marko Auprich; Michael Salfellner; Peter Rehak; Karl Pummer; Gerhart Hubmer Journal: Urology Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.649