WATER versus WATER II 5‐year update: Comparing <scp>Aquablation</scp> therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in 30–80‐cm<sup>3</sup> and 80–150‐cm<sup>3</sup> prostates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aims to compare the long‐term outcomes of Aquablation for small‐to‐moderate (30–80 cm3) prostates with the outcomes for large (80–150 cm3) prostates at 5‐year follow up. Methods The Waterjet Ablation Therapy for Endoscopic Resection of Prostate Tissue (WATER; NCT02505919) is a prospective, double‐blind, international clinical trial encompassing 116 patients, examining Aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for LUTS/BPH in prostates sized between 30 and 80 cm3. In parallel, WATER II (W‐II; NCT03123250), a prospective, multicentre, single‐arm international clinical trial, explores Aquablation outcomes in prostates ranging from 80 to 150 cm3. Baseline parameters and 60‐month outcomes were scrutinized using statistical analyses, including Students' t test, Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables, and Fisher's test for binary variables. Results There is a significant improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) from baseline to 60 months in both WATER (22.9 to 7.0) and WATER II (23.2 to 6.8) (P = 0.852). Urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased in both groups from baseline to 60 months (WATER: 9.4 to 17.3 cc/s; WATER II: 8.7 to 17.1 cc/s) (P = 0.933). Immediate and sustained enhancements were observed in IPSS and Qmax. At 5 years, a notable percentage of patients in both groups were BPH medication‐free (WATER: 99%; WATER II: 94%) (P = 0.0517) and free from surgical retreatment (WATER: 95%; WATER II: 97%) (P = 0.508). Conclusions The 5‐year follow‐up affirms that Aquablation therapy exhibits sustained outcomes, minimal irreversible complications, and low retreatment rates for treating LUTS/BPH, irrespective of prostate volume ranging from 30 to 150 cm3.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".