Comparison of < 100 cc prostates and > 100 cc prostates undergoing aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia

  • N. BhojaniEmail author
  • D.-D. Nguyen
  • R. P. KaufmanJr.
  • D. Elterman
  • K. C. Zorn
Original Article



Surgical options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) become limited when treating large prostates due to steep learning curves and less effective treatment. Aquablation (AquaBeam System, PROCEPT BioRobotics, Inc., USA) could remedy this. We compare the effectiveness of Aquablation in large prostates between 80 cc and 100 cc and very large prostates > 100 cc.


WATER II (NCT03123250) is a prospective, multicenter, international clinical trial of Aquablation for the surgical treatment of LUTS/BPH in men of age 45–80 years with prostates between 80 cc and 150 cc. Aquablation was performed using the AquaBeam System. The reported analysis compares the subgroup of patients with a baseline prostate size of < 100 cc versus those with a prostate size of > 100 cc. Students’ t test was used for continuous variables and Fisher’s test for ordinal/binary variables.


Of 114 screened patients, 101 meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled at 13 US and 3 Canadian sites between September and December 2017. Mean operative time was 31.2 ± 8 min in the < 100 cc subgroup and 41.7 ± 14.9 min in the > 100 cc subgroup. The average length of stay following the procedure for the < 100 cc subgroup was 1.5 ± 0.7 days versus 1.7 ± 1.1 days for the > 100 cc subgroup. Mean changes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life, and IPSS voiding and storage subscores were substantial, occurring soon after treatment and averaging (at 3 months) 16.5, 2.8, 10.6, and 5.8 points, respectively (all p < 0.0001).


Aquablation clinically normalizes outcomes between patients of the < 100 cc and > 100 cc prostate cohorts. It is safe and effective in patients with large prostate glands (> 100 cc) with a smoother learning curve.


Aquablation Benign prostatic hyperplasia Large prostate 


Author contributions

NB: Protocol/project development, data interpretation, manuscript writing/editing. DDN: data interpretation, manuscript writing/editing. kaufman: review. DE: protocol/project development, review. KCZ: protocol/project development, review.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Study data were entered into an electronic data capture system by site coordinators, were monitored, and source-verified by monitors hired by the study sponsor (PROCEPT BioRobotics).

Human or animal studies

This research involves humans.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients.


  1. 1.
    McAninch JW, Lue TF (eds) (2013) Smith & Tanagho's general urology. McGraw-Hill Medical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Welch G, Weinger K, Barry MJ (2002) Quality-of-life impact of lower urinary tract symptom severity: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Urology 59(2):245–250. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McVary KT (2006) BPH: epidemiology and comorbidities. Am J Manag Care 2(5 suppl):122–128. Accessed 6 Jul 2018
  4. 4.
    Foster HE, Barry MJ, Dahm P et al (2018) Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA Guideline. J Urol. Accessed 6 Jul 2018
  5. 5.
    McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL et al (2011) Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 185(5):1793–1803. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nickel JC, Aaron L, Barkin J, Elterman D, Nachabé M, Zorn KC (2018) Canadian Urological Association guideline on male lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (MLUTS/BPH): 2018 update. Can Urol Assoc J 12(10):303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A et al (2015) EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 67(6):1099–1109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, Patel SG, Bales GT (2015) National trends of simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with an analysis of risk factors for adverse perioperative outcomes. Urology 86(4):721–726. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pariser JJ, Packiam VT, Adamsky MA, Bales GT (2016) Trends in simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Urol Rep. 17(8):57. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valdivieso R, Hueber PA, Meskawi M et al (2018) Multicentre international experience of 532-nm laser photoselective vaporization with GreenLight XPS in men with very large prostates. BJU Int. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meskawi M, Hueber P-A, Valdivieso R et al (2017) Multicenter international experience of 532 nm-laser photo-vaporization with Greenlight XPS in men with large prostates (prostate volume > 100 cc). World J Urol 35(10):1603–1609. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valdivieso R, Hueber P-A, Bruyere F et al (2018) Multicenter international experience of 180 W LBO laser photo-vaporization in men with extremely large prostates (prostate volume > 200cc): is there a size limit? Eur Urol Suppl. 17(2):e191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin Y, Wu X, Xu A et al (2016) Transurethral enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Urol 34(9):1207–1219. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papachristou DN, Barters R (1982) Resection of the liver with a water jet. Br J Surg 69(2):93–94. Accessed 6 Jul 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagele U, Kugler M, Nicklas A et al (2011) Waterjet hydrodissection: first experiences and short-term outcomes of a novel approach to bladder tumor resection. World J Urol 29(4):423–427. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilling P, Reuther R, Kahokehr A, Fraundorfer M (2016) Aquablation—image-guided robot-assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate: initial clinical experience. BJU Int. 117(6):923–929. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yassaie O, Silverman JA, Gilling PJ (2017) Aquablation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: early results. Curr Urol Rep. 18(12):91. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M et al (2018) WATER: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of aquablation((R)) vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 199(5):1252–1261. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Desai M, Bidair M, Bhojani N, et al (2018) WATER II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes. BJU Int.
  20. 20.
    Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP et al (1992) The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 148(5):1549–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosen RC, Allen KR, Ni X, Araujo AB (2011) Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function scale. Eur Urol 60(5):1010–1016. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosen RC, Catania J, Pollack L, Althof S, O’Leary M, Seftel AD (2004) Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ): scale development and psychometric validation. Urology 64(4):777–782. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M, Anderson P et al (2018) WATER: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of aquablation® vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 199(5):1252–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N et al (2017) Robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol 31(11):1164–1169. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Monn MF, El Tayeb M, Bhojani N et al (2015) Predictors of enucleation and morcellation time during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Urology 86(2):338–342. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Lingeman JE (2010) Experience with more than 1,000 holmium laser prostate enucleations for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 183(3):1105–1109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saluja M, Masters J, Van Rij S (2018) Open simple prostatectomy. In: The Big Prostate. Springer, Cham, pp 143–152Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marra G, Sturch P, Oderda M, Tabatabaei S, Muir G, Gontero P (2016) Systematic review of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatments on men’s ejaculatory function: time for a bespoke approach? Int J Urol 23(1):22–35. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    El Tayeb MM, Jacob JM, Bhojani N, Bammerlin E, Lingeman JE (2016) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients requiring anticoagulation. J Endourol 30(7):805–809. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bhojani
    • 1
    Email author
  • D.-D. Nguyen
    • 2
  • R. P. KaufmanJr.
    • 3
  • D. Elterman
    • 4
  • K. C. Zorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital CenterUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Albany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA
  4. 4.Department of Urology, University of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations