Aquablation among novice users in Canada: A WATER II subpopulation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgical management options for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) associated with prostates of small to moderate volume (<80 cc) are numerous; however, for men with enlarged prostates (>80 cc), many of these options are neither safe nor effective. Recently, Aquablation (PROCEPT BioRobotics, Inc., U.S.), a precise ultrasound-guided, robotically executed prostatic ablative procedure, has become available with U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Herein, we present three-month safety and efficacy data from the cohort of Canadian men included in the WATER II trial. METHODS: WATER II is a prospective clinical trial of the Aquablation system for the treatment of BPH in men with prostate volumes between 80 and 150 cc. Only patients from Canada were included for this analysis. At baseline, subjects completed International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), as well as several validated questionnaires, uroflowmetry and post-void residual volume measurements, and underwent standard laboratory blood assessment. These were repeated at one and three months post-Aquablation. RESULTS: A total of 19 subjects who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled at three Canadian academic sites. Mean pre-, one-month, and three-month post-treatment IPSS scores were 21.2±5.5, 9.9±6.9 (p<0.0001), and 5.0±4.5 (p<0.0001), respectively. Mean pre-, one-month, and three-month post-treatment maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax) were 6.6±3.1 ml/s, 19.5±6.1 ml/s (p<0.0001), and 23.1±9.2 ml/s (p<0.0001), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher event rate at three months was 31.6% (six events). CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term, three-month analysis of Canadian men, Aquablation appears to provide a strong surgical alternative in patients with LUTS/BPH due to larger prostate volumes, with impressive functional outcomes, relatively short operative time and length of hospital stay, and acceptable complication and low transfusion rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".