RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Aquablation and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have evolved as established therapeutic options for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). We sought to compare the rates of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) after aquablation and HoLEP. METHODS: At our center, between January 2020 and November 2022, 317 men underwent aquablation, and 979 men underwent HoLEP for BPO. Histopathological assessment of resected tissue was conducted in all cases. If iPCa was detected, the Gleason score and percentage of affected tissue were assessed. Differences in important predictive factors for prostate cancer between study groups were accounted for by additional matched pairs analysis (with matching on age ± 1 year; PSA ± 0.5 ng/mL; and prostate volume ± 5 mL). RESULTS: Histopathology revealed iPCas in 60 patients (4.6%): 59 (6.03%) after HoLEP and 1 (0.3%) after aquablation (p = 0.001). Of 60 of incidental cancers, 11 had a Gleason score ≥7 (aquablation: 1/1 [100%]; HoLEP: 10/59 [16.9%]). The aquablation and HoLEP study groups differed in patient age, preoperative PSA, and prostate volume. Therefore, matched pairs analysis (aquablation: 132 patients; HoLEP: 132 patients) was conducted to improve comparability. Also after the matching procedure, significantly fewer iPCas were diagnosed after aquablation than HoLEP (aquablation: 0 [0%]; HoLEP: 6 [4.5%]; p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Significantly fewer iPCas were identified after aquablation than HoLEP procedures. Histopathologic assessment of tissue after aquablation is feasible and may lead to the diagnosis of clinically significant iPCa. Therefore, histopathologic examination of the aquablation resective tissue should not be omitted.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: To compare the surgical methods of Aquablation followed by selective hemostasis by bipolar cauterization with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with regard to the risk of perioperative bleeding complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparison was carried out on a total of 382 patients who had undergone either Aquablation (n = 167) or HoLEP (n = 215) at our hospital between April 2018 and July 2020. The following were studied: Hb loss, the need for packed red blood cell transfusions and surgical revisions due to bleeding from the prostatic fossa. RESULTS: Transfusions were not necessary in the Aquablation group, while one man who underwent HoLEP had to receive a transfusion. Revision surgery due to bleeding was necessary during the early postoperative course in 13.2% of Aquablations and in 9.8% of HoLEPs (statistically not significant; p = 0.329). The perioperative Hb loss was comparable in both entire collectives (Aquablation 1.37 +/- 1.13 mg/dL, HoLEP 1.22 +/- 1.03 mg/dL; statistically not significant; p = 0.353). For subgroup analysis the groups Aquablation and HoLEP were into three subgroups respectively according to sonographically determined preoperative prostate volume ('small' < 40 mL, 'medium' 41-80 mL, 'large' > 80 mL). There were no significant differences between the subgroups regarding need for transfusions and hematuria-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of perioperative hematuria related complications of Aquablation with subsequent selective hemostasis equals those found after holmium laser enucleation.
