These preliminary results from this initial study show aquablation of the prostate is technically feasible with a safety profile comparable to other BPH technologies. The combination of surgical mapping by the operating surgeon and the high-velocity saline provides a promising technique delivering a conformal, quantifiable, and standardised heat-free ablation of the prostate. Advantages of this technique include reduction in resection time compared with other endoscopic methods, as well as the potential to preserve sexual function.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ProACTTM (Uromedica, Inc., MN, USA) balloon device, an alternative for the surgical management of incontinence after prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The initial patients who received this device at our institution were evaluated, using urodynamics at baseline and at 6 months. Perioperative variables were recorded and pad usage, volume adjustments, an estimate of Incontinence Quality of Life (I‐QoL) and adverse events were recorded at baseline, and 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS In all, 37 patients were treated on this protocol between November 2001 and March 2005. Of these, 30 had had radical prostatectomy and seven holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. The mean (range) pad usage decreased from 2.81  (1–12) at baseline to 0.7 (0–4) pads at 24 months, and the I‐QOL increased from 49.7 (4.5–77) to 81.3 (13.6–100) over the same period. At 24 months, 62% of 34 men were pad‐free and 81% required one pad or less. Bilateral explantation was required in three patients (11%) for infection (one) and balloon migration (two). All other adverse events were mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS The ProACT balloon device is an acceptable therapy for the surgical management of incontinence after prostatectomy.

Tristel Trio Wipes are equal to PeraSafe and Cidex OPA in terms of microbiological efficacy. Turnaround time and cost are dramatically reduced when using Tristel Trio Wipes compared to the other disinfectant methods.

Objective• To compare the effectiveness, safety and cost of Tristel Fuse (chlorine dioxide) with Cidex OPA (ortho-phthaldehyde; 1,2-benzenedicarboxaldehyde) in an automated endoscopic reprocessor (AER) for high-level disinfection of flexible cystoscopes. Patients and Methods• A randomised single-blind study comparing the high-level disinfectants Tristel Fuse as a simple office-based soak and Cidex OPA using an AER was performed. Participants were 'blinded' to the agent used for disinfection of the flexible cystoscopes.• All patients had negative mid-stream urine at baseline, (MSU) no symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infection (UTI) on the day of investigation, no recent antibiotic use or current indwelling urinary catheter.• Patients who underwent cystoscopic biopsy during the procedure were excluded. • A urine analysis was done before and 3-5 days after cystoscopy and multiple equipment cultures were performed.• The Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6 + two questions from the 'long-form'), symptom and quality-of-life scoreswere assessed before and after cystoscopy as were ease-of-use assessments and a full cost analysis. Results• In all, 180 of 465 screened participants were randomised 1:1 and the mean age was 72.1 years, 17% were females and 57% of procedures were performed for bladder tumour surveillance.• The urine analysis was positive in 5.4% of patients in each group and 29% (Tristel) vs 20% (Cidex) of patients had urinary leukocyturia (p = ns) after cystoscopy.• The turnover (minutes per cycle) was 7.5 (Tristel) vs 26.7 (Cidex). The per-procedure costs were $11.67 (American dollars) for Tristel Fuse and $21.82 for Cidex OPA with fixed costs of $4788 for Tristel Fuse and $60 514 for Cidex OPA. Conclusions• Tristel Fuse appears to be as effective and more cost-effective than Cidex OPA for high-level disinfection of flexible cystoscopes. This has significant cost implications for the office urologist.

No abstract