Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

“Aquabeam® System” for benign prostatic hyperplasia and LUTS: birth of a new era. A systematic review of functional and sexual outcome and adverse events of the technique

Abstract

Purpose

Aim of this systematic review is to evaluate functional outcomes (Qmax, QoL, IPSS, PVR), sexual outcome (erectile dysfunction and anejaculation rate), and adverse events evaluated according to the Clavien–Dindo classification.

Methods

The bibliographic search with the included terms (prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, benign prostatic enlargement, lower urinary tract symptoms, water jet dissection, aquablation, Aquabeam®) produced a literature of 32 articles altogether. After removing papers of not interest or articles which the outcomes could not be deduced, nine studies were examined for a total of 664 patients screened.

Results

The functional outcomes, evaluated after water jet dissection, have shown improvement with respect to the baseline in all the selected articles. In the comparison papers with the TURP, the Aquablation has been statistically not inferior regarding functional outcomes. The sexual outcomes have highlighted a better ejaculation rate for water jet dissection than TURP. Regarding the adverse events, water jet dissection documented low rates of adverse events and, in comparison studies, were not statistically superior than TURP.

Conclusions

In our systematic review, the Aquabeam® System for the treatment of LUTS/BPH has proven to be a safe technique that provides functional outcomes comparable to TURP. About sexual outcomes, the most important data is certainly the low rate of retrograde ejaculation. However, other multicenter randomized trials with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are still needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Egan KB. The epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: prevalence and incident rates. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43:289–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, et al. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol. 2010;58:384–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomas JA, Tubaro A, Barber N, d’Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U, et al. A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol. 2016;69:94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu Y, Zhuo J, Xu D, Xia S, Herrmann TR. Thulium laser versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2015;33:509–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1066–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. MacRae C, Gilling P. How i do it: aquablation of the prostate using the AQUABEAM system. Can J Urol. 2016;23:8590–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilling P, Reuther R, Kahokehr A, Fraundorfer M. Aquablation—image-guided robot-assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate: initial clinical experience. BJU Int. 2016;117:923–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M, Anderson P, Sutton M, Aho T, et al. WATER: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Aquablation® vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2018;199:1252–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Desai M, Bidair M, Bhojani N, Trainer A, Arther A, Kramolowsky E, et al. WATER II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes. BJU Int. 2019;123:106–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kasivisvanathan V, Hussain M. Aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 1 year United States—cohort outcomes. Can J Urol. 2018;25:9317–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chughtai B, Thomas D. Pooled aquablation results for American men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (60–150 cc). Adv Ther. 2018;35:832–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zorn KC, Goldenberg SL, Paterson R, So A, Elterman D, Bhojani N. Aquablation among novice users in Canada: a WATER II subpopulation analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019;13:E113–8.

  14. Bach T, Giannakis I, Bachmann A, Fiori C, Gomez-Sancha F, Herrmann TRW, et al. Aquablation of the prostate: single-center results of a non-selected, consecutive patient cohort. World J Urol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2509-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Desai MM, Singh A, Abhishek S, Laddha A, Pandya H, Ashrafi AN, et al. Aquablation therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience in 47 patients. BJU Int. 2018;121:945–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yafi FA, Tallman CT, Seard ML, Jordan ML. Aquablation outcomes for the U.S. cohort of men with LUTS due to BPH in large prostates (80–150 cc). Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:209–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. EAU Guidelines on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). 2018. Chap. 7, para 4, p. 47.

  18. Cimino S, Voce S, Palmieri F, Favilla V, Castelli T, Privitera S, et al. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) vs GreenLight photoselective vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: analysis of BPH6 outcomes after 1 year of follow-up. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:240–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2017.30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lebdai S, Chevrot A, Doizi S, Pradere B, Delongchamps NB, Benchikh A, et al. Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment. World J Urol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2368-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Reale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reale, G., Cimino, S., Bruno, G. et al. “Aquabeam® System” for benign prostatic hyperplasia and LUTS: birth of a new era. A systematic review of functional and sexual outcome and adverse events of the technique. Int J Impot Res 31, 392–399 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0158-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0158-3

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links