Aquablation vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a 150-patients prospective comparative multicenter study.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-11 DOI:10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05871-3
Juan Justo Quintas, Esther García Rojo, Borja García Gómez, Fernando Lista Mateos, Renan J Otta Oshiro, Elena Peña Vallejo, Celeste Manfredi, Giorgio Bozzini, Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín, Javier Romero-Otero
{"title":"Aquablation vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a 150-patients prospective comparative multicenter study.","authors":"Juan Justo Quintas, Esther García Rojo, Borja García Gómez, Fernando Lista Mateos, Renan J Otta Oshiro, Elena Peña Vallejo, Celeste Manfredi, Giorgio Bozzini, Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín, Javier Romero-Otero","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05871-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Aquablation<sup>®</sup> with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study conducted between July 2021 and July 2023, consecutive patients undergoing BPH surgery were enrolled to each group. Patients had moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥8, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) ≤15 mL/s, prostate volume ≥30 mL ≤120 mL, and BPH medical therapy failure. Primary outcome was short-term efficacy measured by IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, post-void residual volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA); secondary outcome was safety (intra and post-operative complications, ejaculatory dysfunction, continence, blood transfusions). A six-month follow-up was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 150 patients (75:75) enrolled, both groups showed improvements (P<0.05) in IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, and PVR at six months. No significant differences were observed between HoLEP and Aquablation<sup>®</sup> in IPSS (7.6±6.9 vs. 5.05±4.9 points, P=0.11), IPSS-QoL (1.7±1.6 vs. 1.3±1.6 points, P=0.16), Qmax (28.6±8.8 vs. 23.8±9.3 mL/sec, P=0.12), and PVR (7.2±8.2 vs. 20.3±22.6 mL, P=0.19) at six months. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in Aquablation<sup>®</sup> group (2.6±1.33 vs. 0.4±0.67 g/dL, P<0.001), with no statistically significant differences in transfusion rate (1.3 vs. 1.3%, P=0.31). Ejaculatory dysfunction rate was significantly lower in Aquablation<sup>®</sup> (6,6%) than HoLEP (89.3%, P<0.001). Mean prostate volume was (mean±SD) 81.8±37.4 and 71.9±34.8 mL (P=0.08) in HoLEP and Aquablation<sup>®</sup> groups, respectively. Holep demonstrated a smaller prostate volume after treatment (18.1±6.5 vs. 46.5±25.02 mL P<0.001) as well as a significantly greater reduction and lower levels of PSA (1.2±1.4 vs. 2.65±2.8 ng/mL, P<0.001). Aquablation<sup>®</sup> demonstrated significantly shorter tissue removal time (5.5±2.4 vs. 22.4±9.8 min, P<0.001), but no difference in total operative time (49.1±15 vs. 43.9±26.8 min, P=0.052).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP and Aquablation<sup>®</sup> show similar effectiveness and safety for BPH-related-LUTS at 6 months. Aquablation<sup>®</sup> has lower ejaculatory dysfunction rates. Larger randomized trials and with longer follow-up time are needed for validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":53228,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":"111-119"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05871-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Aquablation® with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods: Prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study conducted between July 2021 and July 2023, consecutive patients undergoing BPH surgery were enrolled to each group. Patients had moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥8, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) ≤15 mL/s, prostate volume ≥30 mL ≤120 mL, and BPH medical therapy failure. Primary outcome was short-term efficacy measured by IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, post-void residual volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA); secondary outcome was safety (intra and post-operative complications, ejaculatory dysfunction, continence, blood transfusions). A six-month follow-up was performed.

Results: Of 150 patients (75:75) enrolled, both groups showed improvements (P<0.05) in IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, and PVR at six months. No significant differences were observed between HoLEP and Aquablation® in IPSS (7.6±6.9 vs. 5.05±4.9 points, P=0.11), IPSS-QoL (1.7±1.6 vs. 1.3±1.6 points, P=0.16), Qmax (28.6±8.8 vs. 23.8±9.3 mL/sec, P=0.12), and PVR (7.2±8.2 vs. 20.3±22.6 mL, P=0.19) at six months. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in Aquablation® group (2.6±1.33 vs. 0.4±0.67 g/dL, P<0.001), with no statistically significant differences in transfusion rate (1.3 vs. 1.3%, P=0.31). Ejaculatory dysfunction rate was significantly lower in Aquablation® (6,6%) than HoLEP (89.3%, P<0.001). Mean prostate volume was (mean±SD) 81.8±37.4 and 71.9±34.8 mL (P=0.08) in HoLEP and Aquablation® groups, respectively. Holep demonstrated a smaller prostate volume after treatment (18.1±6.5 vs. 46.5±25.02 mL P<0.001) as well as a significantly greater reduction and lower levels of PSA (1.2±1.4 vs. 2.65±2.8 ng/mL, P<0.001). Aquablation® demonstrated significantly shorter tissue removal time (5.5±2.4 vs. 22.4±9.8 min, P<0.001), but no difference in total operative time (49.1±15 vs. 43.9±26.8 min, P=0.052).

Conclusions: HoLEP and Aquablation® show similar effectiveness and safety for BPH-related-LUTS at 6 months. Aquablation® has lower ejaculatory dysfunction rates. Larger randomized trials and with longer follow-up time are needed for validation.

水消融与钬激光前列腺摘除治疗良性前列腺增生:一项150例患者的前瞻性多中心比较研究。
背景:本研究的目的是比较Aquablation®与钬激光前列腺去核术(HoLEP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者的疗效和安全性。方法:前瞻性比较非随机多中心研究于2021年7月至2023年7月进行,每组连续入组接受BPH手术的患者。患者中重度下尿路症状(LUTS),国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)≥8,最大尿流率(Qmax)≤15 mL/s,前列腺体积≥30 mL≤120 mL, BPH药物治疗失败。主要终点是通过IPSS、IPSS- qol、Qmax、虚空后残留体积(PVR)、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)测量短期疗效;次要终点是安全性(术中及术后并发症、射精功能障碍、尿失禁、输血)。随访6个月。结果:纳入的150例患者(75:75)中,两组在6个月时IPSS(7.6±6.9比5.05±4.9分,P=0.11)、IPSS- qol(1.7±1.6比1.3±1.6分,P=0.16)、Qmax(28.6±8.8比23.8±9.3 mL/sec, P=0.12)和PVR(7.2±8.2比20.3±22.6 mL, P=0.19)均有改善。无术中并发症发生。Aquablation®组术后血红蛋白下降(2.6±1.33 vs. 0.4±0.67 g/dL, P®(6.6%)高于HoLEP组(89.3%,P®)。Holep治疗后前列腺体积减小(18.1±6.5 mL vs. 46.5±25.02 mL),组织切除时间缩短(5.5±2.4 min vs. 22.4±9.8 min)。结论:在6个月时,Holep和Aquablation治疗bph相关luts具有相似的有效性和安全性。Aquablation®具有较低的射精功能障碍率。验证需要更大规模的随机试验和更长的随访时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva Urology and Nephrology
Minerva Urology and Nephrology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
32.70%
发文量
237
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信