Aquablation of the prostate: single-center results of a non-selected, consecutive patient cohort

  • T. BachEmail author
  • I. Giannakis
  • A. Bachmann
  • C. Fiori
  • Fernando Gomez-Sancha
  • T. R. W. Herrmann
  • C. Netsch
  • M. Rieken
  • C. M. Scoffone
  • L. Tunc
  • J. J. Rassweiler
  • E. Liatsikos
Original Article



Aquablation of the prostate using the AquaBeam™ system promises equivalent functional outcomes, reduced learning curve, and improved sexual function compared to transurethral prostate resection as shown in prospective randomized trials. This prospective cohort study aims to evaluate if published results can be transferred into the clinical routine in a non-selected patient collective.


This study includes all patients treated between September 2017 and June 2018 with Aquablation of the prostate. Patients have been evaluated prospectively for the perioperative course and early follow-up. Besides voiding parameter and symptom score, TRUS-volume change, ejaculatory function, and adverse events have been recorded.


118 consecutive patients have been treated in the given time. Aquablation could be carried out successfully in all patients. IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR improved significantly after the procedure and continued to improve during 3-month follow-up. Mean OR time was 20 min, TRUS volume decreased by 65%, and 73% of the patients retained antegrade ejaculation. Thirteen adverse events (> Clavien-Dindo I) occurred in 10 patients.


The surgical ablation of the prostate using Aquablation achieved significant and immediate improvement of functional voiding parameters Qmax and PVR as well as symptomatic improvement of IPSS and QoL. Aquablation seems to be safe and effective with a low perioperative complication profile even in a non-selected group of patients.


BPH BPO Aquablation AquaBeam Waterjet 


Author contributions

TB protocol and project development, data analysis, manuscript writing. GG manuscript writing and editing, data analysis. AB interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. CF interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. FGS interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. TRWH interpretation of data, manuscript editing. CN interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. MR interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. CMS interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. LT interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. JJR interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript. EL interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

TB: Advisory, speakers honoraries, trial participation, meeting participation: R. Wolf, PROCEPT Biorobotics, Boston Scientific.

TRWH: Company consultant, advisory, patent, royalties, speakers honoraries Karl Storz, LISALaser, Advisory, speakers honoraries, travel grants, Boston Scientific Advisory, speakers honoraries.

Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and nothing to declare in regards with this manuscript.

This is a series of consecutive patients treated with in clinical routine. The study was approved by IRB and local ethics committee. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Herrmann TR, Georgiou A, Bach T, Gross AJ, Oelke M (2009) Laser treatments of the prostate vs TURP/open prostatectomy: systematic review of urodynamic data. Minerva Urol Nefrol 61(3):309–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornu JN (2016) Bipolar, monopolar, photovaporization of the prostate, or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: how to choose what’s best? Urol Clin North Am 43(3):377–384. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrmann TR (2016) Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 34(10):1353–1355. (Epub 2016 Sep 1) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herrmann TR (2016) Long-term outcome after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: from monopolar enucleation to HoLEP and from HoLEP to EEP. Urologe A. 55(11):1446–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trueman P, Hood SC, Nayak US, Mrazek MF (1999) Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms and self-reported diagnosed ‘benign prostatic hyperplasia’, and their effect on quality of life in a community-based survey of men in the UK. BJU Int. 83(4):410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim KB (2017) Epidemiology of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. Asian J Urol. 4(3):148–151. (Epub 2017 Jun 9) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin Y, Wu X, Xu A, Herrmann TR 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. (Epub 2015 Dec 23) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rau HG, Duessel AP, Wurzbacher S (2008) The use of water-jet dissection in open and laparoscopic liver resection. HPB (Oxford). 10(4):275–280. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basting RF, Djakovic N, Widmann P (2000) Use of water jet resection in organ-sparing kidney surgery. J Endourol 14(6):501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honl M, Rentzsch R, Lampe F et al (2000) Water-jet cutting of bone and bone cement. A study of the possibilities and limitations of a new technique. Biomed Tech 45:222–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ortel J, Gaab MR, Piek J (2003) Water jet resection of brain metastases—first clinical results with 10 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 29(4):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fritsche HM, Otto W, Eder F et al (2011) Water-jet-aided transurethral dissection of urothelial carcinoma: a prospective clinical study. J Endourol 25(10):1599–1603. (Epub 2011 Aug 4) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nagele U, Kugler M, Herrmann TR 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. (Epub 2011 Feb 9) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faber K (2015) Image-guided robot-assisted prostate ablation using water jet-hydrodissection: initial study of a novel technology for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 29:63–69. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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. (Epub 2015 Nov 19) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilling P, Anderson P, Tan A (2017) Aquablation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 1-year results. J Urol 197(6):1565–1572. (Epub 2017 Jan 20) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M 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):1252–1261. (Epub 2018 Jan 31) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A et al (2015) 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 67(6):1066–1096. (Epub 2014 Jun 25) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Desai M, Bidair M et al (2018) Water II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes. BJU Int. (Epub ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desai M, Singh A et al (2018) Aquablation therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience in 47 patients. BJU Int. 121(6):945–951. (Epub 2018 Feb 4) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green JS, Bose P et al (1996) How complete is a transurethral resection of the prostate? Br J Urol 77(3):398–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson LC, Gilling PJ (2006) A randomised trial comparing holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in the treatment of prostates larger than 40 g: results at 2 years. Eur Urol 50(3):569–573 (Epub 2006 May 2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gilling P (2014) First-in-human clinical experience of a novel treatment for BPH: image guided robotically-assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate. J Endourol 28(Supplement):1Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plante M, Gilling P (2018) Symptom relief and anejaculation after aquablation or TURP: subgroup analysis from a blinded randomized trial. BJU Int. (Epub ahead of print) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gilling P, Anderson P et al (2017) Aquablation of the Prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 1-year results. J Urol 197:1565–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kasivisvanathan V et al (2018) Aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 1 year United States—cohort outcomes. Can J Urol. 25(3):9317–9322PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Bach
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. Giannakis
    • 2
  • A. Bachmann
    • 3
  • C. Fiori
    • 3
  • Fernando Gomez-Sancha
    • 3
  • T. R. W. Herrmann
    • 3
  • C. Netsch
    • 3
  • M. Rieken
    • 3
  • C. M. Scoffone
    • 3
  • L. Tunc
    • 3
  • J. J. Rassweiler
    • 3
  • E. Liatsikos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyAsklepios Hospital HarburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyKantonspital FrauenfeldKanton ThurgauSwitzerland
  3. 3.European Association of Urology Section of Urotechnology (ESUT)–Lower Tract Working GroupArnhemThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations