You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP59-01 A PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OFTHE PROSTATE (HOLEP) AND AQUABEAM ROBOTIC SYSTEM FOR THE TREATMENT OF BENIGNPROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA Javier Romero Otero, Juan Justo Quintas, Raquel Sopeña Sutil, Borja García Gómez, Ricardo Brime Menendez, Javier Amalio Feltes Ochoa, David Saenz Calzada, Gino Marcelo Espinales Catro, Laura Avilleira García, Elena Peña Vallejo, Cristina Calzas Montalvo, Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín, and Esther Garcia Rojo Javier Romero OteroJavier Romero Otero More articles by this author , Juan Justo QuintasJuan Justo Quintas More articles by this author , Raquel Sopeña SutilRaquel Sopeña Sutil More articles by this author , Borja García GómezBorja García Gómez More articles by this author , Ricardo Brime MenendezRicardo Brime Menendez More articles by this author , Javier Amalio Feltes OchoaJavier Amalio Feltes Ochoa More articles by this author , David Saenz CalzadaDavid Saenz Calzada More articles by this author , Gino Marcelo Espinales CatroGino Marcelo Espinales Catro More articles by this author , Laura Avilleira GarcíaLaura Avilleira García More articles by this author , Elena Peña VallejoElena Peña Vallejo More articles by this author , Cristina Calzas MontalvoCristina Calzas Montalvo More articles by this author , Alfredo Rodríguez AntolínAlfredo Rodríguez Antolín More articles by this author , and Esther Garcia RojoEsther Garcia Rojo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003312.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Prostatic enucleation is considered the gold standard for the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH). Emerging minimally invasive technologies aim to maintain functional results whilst decreasing adverseevents. Aquablation is a novel heat-free therapy using a high-velocity waterjet and real-time ultrasound imaging with robotic assistance for removal of prostate tissue. Our objective is to compare for the first time the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Aquablation for the surgical treatment of BPH. METHODS: Prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study of 100 consecutive patients treated with HoLEP or Aquabeam system. HoLEP was performed by 3 expert surgeons and a standard Aquablation was performed with the AquaBeam system by 2 surgeons. Inclusion criteria: patients with moderate/severe symptoms due to BPH. Exclusion criteria: previous surgical treatment for BPH, concomitant urethral stenosis, bladder tumor, or lithiasis and prostates >120cc. The data were prospectively collected. A descriptive analysis was performed and data onthe efficacy and safety of both techniques were compared. RESULTS: The groups are comparable (p>0.05) in prostate size; mean HoLEP vs Aquabeam; 78.95 vs 77.10cc, preoperative IPSS (24.26 vs 22.68), Q max (8.44 vs 9.83) and IIEF15 (41.10 vs 58.15), as well as in the rest preoperative variables (age, personal history, PSA, ASA risk and ejaculation function). Treatment time was longer in the HoLEP group with a mean of 23 minutes for enucleation vs. 5.99 minutes in the Aquabeam group (p<0.05). However, no statistically significant differences in total operating theatre time (53 vs 60 minutes). No intraoperative complications. More significant haematic loss (haemoglobin drop) in the Aquabeam group but none of the patients required a transfusion. As for the perioperative outcomes: no differences were observed between the two groups in bladder catheterization time: 30.53 vs 46.91 hours and hospitalization time 1.4 vs 1.74 days. No differences in rehospitalization, emergency room visits, recatheterization, or infection. At the 6-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were found in Q-max, BOO, IPSS, complication rates or incontinence. On the other hand, statistically significant differences were found in prostate volume (16.86 vs 42.43 p=0.012) and PSA(0.51 vs 4.2 p<0.01). All patients with Aquabeam retain anterograde ejaculation, while only one patient in the HoLEP group preserves it. CONCLUSIONS: The Aquabeam System appears to be a safe technique that provides comparable early functional and perioperative results to HoLEP with a similar complication rate. Advantages of this technique include reduced resection time as well as the possibility of preserving sexual function. Source of Funding: no © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e806 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Javier Romero Otero More articles by this author Juan Justo Quintas More articles by this author Raquel Sopeña Sutil More articles by this author Borja García Gómez More articles by this author Ricardo Brime Menendez More articles by this author Javier Amalio Feltes Ochoa More articles by this author David Saenz Calzada More articles by this author Gino Marcelo Espinales Catro More articles by this author Laura Avilleira García More articles by this author Elena Peña Vallejo More articles by this author Cristina Calzas Montalvo More articles by this author Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín More articles by this author Esther Garcia Rojo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract