Danielle Whiting1, Keng Lim Ng1, Neil Barber2. 1. Department of Urology, Frimley Park Hospital, Portsmouth Road, Frimley, Camberley, GU167UJ, UK. 2. Department of Urology, Frimley Park Hospital, Portsmouth Road, Frimley, Camberley, GU167UJ, UK. neil.barber@nhs.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aquablation using the AquaBeam system combines real-time image guidance and robotics to enable precise and heat-free removal of prostatic tissue with a high velocity water jet. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of Aquablation up to 1 year in a single centre within the UK employing an athermal approach to haemostasis. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive men underwent Aquablation between September 2017 and December 2018 (as part of OPEN WATER trial). Standard Aquablation was performed with the AquaBeam system (PROCEPT® BioRobotics) with 2 passes of Aquablation followed by bladder washout with application of continuous bladder irrigation via a catheter on a continuous traction device. Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months. The data were prospectively collected on patient demographics, uroflowmetry, prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15). RESULTS: The mean age was 64.1 ± 7.9 years. Operating time was 26.9 ± 9.2 min. Mean prostate volume decreased from 58.2 ± 23.9 cc to 33.2 ± 12.9 cc (p < 0.0001). There were significant improvements at the 12 month follow-up in maximum urinary flow rate (9.9 ± 5.1 ml/s vs. 23.9 ± 11.6 ml/s), IPSS (21.7 ± 7.4 vs. 6.1 ± 4.2) and quality of life score (4.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant change in IIEF-15 and MSHQ-EjD scores. There were 8 (14.5%) Clavien grade 2 or higher complications. CONCLUSION: Our single centre experience suggests Aquablation using an entirely athermal approach is a safe cavitating procedure resulting in significant LUTS improvement comparable to standard cavitating procedures with greater preservation of sexual function.
PURPOSE: Aquablation using the AquaBeam system combines real-time image guidance and robotics to enable precise and heat-free removal of prostatic tissue with a high velocity water jet. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of Aquablation up to 1 year in a single centre within the UK employing an athermal approach to haemostasis. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive men underwent Aquablation between September 2017 and December 2018 (as part of OPEN WATER trial). Standard Aquablation was performed with the AquaBeam system (PROCEPT® BioRobotics) with 2 passes of Aquablation followed by bladder washout with application of continuous bladder irrigation via a catheter on a continuous traction device. Patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months. The data were prospectively collected on patient demographics, uroflowmetry, prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15). RESULTS: The mean age was 64.1 ± 7.9 years. Operating time was 26.9 ± 9.2 min. Mean prostate volume decreased from 58.2 ± 23.9 cc to 33.2 ± 12.9 cc (p < 0.0001). There were significant improvements at the 12 month follow-up in maximum urinary flow rate (9.9 ± 5.1 ml/s vs. 23.9 ± 11.6 ml/s), IPSS (21.7 ± 7.4 vs. 6.1 ± 4.2) and quality of life score (4.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant change in IIEF-15 and MSHQ-EjD scores. There were 8 (14.5%) Clavien grade 2 or higher complications. CONCLUSION: Our single centre experience suggests Aquablation using an entirely athermal approach is a safe cavitating procedure resulting in significant LUTS improvement comparable to standard cavitating procedures with greater preservation of sexual function.
Authors: Ahmed S Zakaria; Félix Couture; David-Dan Nguyen; Côme Tholomier; Hanna Shahine; Franziska Stolzenbach; Malek Meskawi; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Can J Urol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Chi-Hang Yee; Sui-Fan Tang; Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen; Chi-Kwok Chan; Jeremy Y C Teoh; Peter K F Chiu; Chi-Fai Ng Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 2.266