WATER versus WATER II 2-Year Update: Comparing Aquablation Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in 30–80-cm3 and 80–150-cm3 Prostates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical options are limited when treating large (>80 cm3) prostates for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Open simple prostatectomy remains the most common procedure performed for large prostates. There is a need for novel surgical approaches with shorter learning curves and effective treatment. Aquablation could be this novel tool. To compare the outcome of Aquablation for 30–80-cm3 prostates with the outcome for 80–150-cm3 prostates at 2-yr follow-up. We used data from two trials. WATER is a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, international clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of Aquablation and transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of LUTS/BPH in men aged 45–80 yr with a prostate of 30–80 cm3. WATER II is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm international clinical trial of Aquablation in men with a prostate of 80–150 cm3. Aquablation, an ultrasound-guided, robotically executed waterjet ablative procedure. We compared 24-mo outcomes between 116 WATER and 101 WATER II study subjects. Student’s t test or a Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Fisher’s test for categorical variables. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) reductions at 24 mo was 14.5 points for WATER and 17.4 points for WATER II (p = 0.31). At baseline, the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) was 9.4 and 8.7 cm3/s in WATER and WATER II, improving to 20.5 and 18.2 cm3/s, respectively (p = 0.60) at 24 mo. Improvements in both IPSS and Qmax were immediate and sustained throughout follow-up. At 2 yr, the surgical retreatment rate was 4% in WATER and 2% in WATER II. Aquablation is effective in patients with a prostate of 30–80 cm3 and patients with a prostate of 80–150 cm3 treated for LUTS/BPH, with comparable outcomes in both groups. It has low complication and retreatment rates at 2 yr of follow-up, with durable improvements in functional outcome. Outcomes of Aquablation for both small-to-moderately-sized and large prostates are similar and sustainable at 2 yr of follow-up.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".