Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 April;72(2) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 April;72(2):152-61

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 April;72(2):152-61

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03654-1

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

All you need to know about “Aquablation” procedure for treatment of benign prostatic obstruction

Cristian FIORI 1 , Enrico CHECCUCCI 1, Peter GILLING 2, Daniele AMPARORE 1, Gabriele VOLPI 1, Sabrina DE CILLIS 1, Roberta AIMAR 1, Michele SICA 1, Giovanni CATTANEO 1, Giorgio ALLEVA 1, Matteo MANFREDI 1, Francesco PORPIGLIA 1, on behalf of the ESUT Lower Tract Group

1 Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 2 Tauranga Urology Research, Tauranga, New Zealand



INTRODUCTION: In recent years, technological advances and new approaches have been developed for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) in order to reduce complications like bleeding, retrograde ejaculation and risk of infection while obtaining an adequate disobstruction. The most recent surgical approach introduced is the Aquablation system (PROCEPT BioRobotics, Redwood Shores, CA, USA). This intervention is a robotically guided system that uses high-velocity water jets in order to ablate prostatic tissue, with real-time ultrasound guidance. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence on Aquablation and its results, compared to the reported outcomes of the gold standard treatment, the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the Literature was performed in June 2019 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane databases. The studies that compared the Aquablation to the standard TURP were included. Moreover, a critical review of the single arm studies was conducted.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The results of this systematic review, based on a single RCT that compared Aquablation vs. TURP in prostates 30-80 cc in size, confirmed that Aquablation has at least a similar efficacy as TURP, but has a better safety profile, allows shorter resection times, and has a lower risk of retrograde ejaculation. Moreover, in some subcategories of patients (e.g., when prostate volume is >50 cc) functional outcomes of Aquablation are better than those of TURP. Evidence from non-comparative clinical studies and from real life scenarios have confirmed that Aquablation may be used effectively for prostate volumes up to 150 cc.
CONCLUSIONS: The Aquablation procedure for the treatment of BPO allows high clinical efficacy with an excellent safety profile. For prostate volume 30-80 cc, comparative studies demonstrated that this procedure offers clinical results at least comparable to those of conventional TURP. Latest evidence showed that Aquablation may be used effectively for prostate volumes up to 150 cc. The major strengths are its high-speed resection time, low complication rate, and potential for sexual function preservation.


KEY WORDS: Robotic surgical procedures; Transurethral resection of prostate; Prostate

top of page