ReviewWorld journal of urology2021
Reasons to overthrow TURP: bring on Aquablation.
Review in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: real-world prostate size relevance and bleeding events across 6 years.BJU international · 2026Article
- Aquablation, a safe technique?Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A review of Aquablation, Rezum, and transperineal laser prostate ablation.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Review
- Learning curve in aquablation: an international multicenter study.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Ejaculation-sparing versus non-ejaculation-sparing anatomic GreenLight laser enucleo-vaporization of the prostate: first comparative study.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- TURPxit or not: contemporary management options for benign prostatic obstruction.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this review, we will discuss the state of the literature regarding Aquablation, its limitations, and opportunities for its application in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).
methodsA comprehensive review of original research on Aquablation was conducted. Articles related to transurethral resection of the prostate, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate, and simple prostatectomy were reviewed for discussion.
resultsFor small-medium prostates (30-80 mL), Aquablation's main advantages include better ejaculatory function and similar functional outcomes compared to TURP. For large prostates (80-150 mL), Aquablation demonstrates shorter operative time and superior ejaculatory function when compared to simple prostatectomy, HoLEP, and Greenlight PVP. In addition, Aquablation displays shorter hospital stays than simple prostatectomy. The integration of software programming and semi-automatic technology increases the reproducibility of the procedure and helps standardize overall outcomes, while also accelerating the learning curve. Its ability to preserve antegrade ejaculation makes Aquablation a very compelling option for sexually active patients. However cost and postoperative bleeding risks remain a concern.
conclusionThe current evidence suggests that Aquablation is a safe and effective alternative for BPE for small to large prostates. Further prospective clinical trials, with comparisons to other BPE modalities, and data from longer follow-up periods are still required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.