Of course it’s been improved, it was a novel application of a technology to prostate disease 7 years ago when they did initial tests on canine prostates. It didn’t have FDA approval to be marketed until late 2017.
What do you mean by “…he brought it to the US?” Are you saying Barber told you he brought the technology to the US? I’ve read all of the US patents related to aquablation and don’t recall seeing his name among the inventors or assignees. He was one of many urologists from several countries who participated in the WATER trial. The Aquabeam system evolved from inventions assigned to a company in Massachusetts in which products using water jets used in spinal surgery and possibly other applications were developed.
Regarding his comments in the email he sent you:
“I’m afraid the planning is in real time when your asleep.”
I don’t know what question this was in response to, but all he is saying is that the patient is under anesthesia before the surgeon begins his work. No kidding!!! However that does not mean the surgeon and patient do not discuss and agree on the general approach the surgeon will take when setting the ablation contours during office visits. That was certainly true in my case. In fact it was one of the first things he asked me.
“You can’t identify the prostatic or common ejaculatory ducts I’m afraid. But you could plan to be conservative at the bladder neck and where the ducts emerge in the hope for higher rates.”
You can easily see where the ducts emerge on the veru with the scope that is part of the handpiece instrument and most experienced urologists should know the approximate path the main ejaculatory ducts take from the seminal vesicles which are visible on the ultrasound. They typically run posterior laterally and angle toward the veru from below. Given the position of the hand piece probe that contains the water jet aperture (pressed up against the anterior surface of the urethra) and that the maximum cut depth is 25mm (~2.5cm) the water jet is not capable of reaching the depth where the ejaculatory ducts run except in the apex where they approach and enter the veru from below on all but the smallest prostates. This is why the software contains an adjustable veru protection zone that limits the sweep angle of the jet so that it cannot go below 52 degrees on either side resulting in the so-called “butterfly cut” and also why the surgeon can raise the cut profile in the sagittal plane to limit the maximum cut depth anywhere along the axis of the probe.
Responding to your previous comment “before there was no way to adjust it and everything was taken out.”
This is simply not true. The WATER trial (in which he participated) and the FDA approval of the device were started / granted prior to 2018 when you got that email from him. The documentation for both explains how the ablation contours are adjustable. If they were not adjustable then the system could only be used on one size/shape/configuration of a prostate, which is preposterous. I don’t know what you mean by “everything” but that is not true either. In fact, it’s not POSSIBLE in prostates above a fairly small size. The water jet has limits on maximum sweep angle and cut depth. It can’t ablate anything outside of that envelope unless the hand piece is repositioned following the first cut which I’ve never heard of being done.
I think you’ve also claimed before that once the robot starts a resection pass it can’t be stopped or changed until it finishes. That also is untrue. The system as described in the 2017 FDA document includes a foot switch that starts the resection when depressed and halts it when lifted. In the conformal planning unit video from my procedure that I’ve watched multiple times it is obvious that not only is it possible to stop and end a pass before it’s completed, my surgeon did that to make some adjustments during one of the two passes.
Urolift has two things going for it. It never causes sexual side effects (unique in that regard) and it can be done in-office without general or spinal anesthesia. However it does have some risks other procedures don’t and on average is not as effective as procedures that remove tissue. I’m glad it met your goals in your case but that’s not a reason to criticize other procedures that are available to men who likely are not as worried about RE as you seem to be and may have different goals.