I had my aquablation in Dec 2022, 28 months ago, at age 71. My experience was similar to those reported here and I did not regret my decision, though it took much longer than usual to stop intermittent bleeding (3 months). Full sexual function returned within 2 months. Then two months ago I thought I had a UTI, but did not. The urologist did an cystoscopy and said the prostate had "grown back" to the point that I was again retaining urine in the bladder at unacceptable levels. None of the several doctors I spoke with seems the least surprised by this regrowth. Three are pressuring me to have a TURP done instead, ASAP. I went on Silodosin, which helped with the symptoms but caused retrograde ejaculation, while I postponed any decision. If the procedure is good for just two years, I wonder if it was worth the risks, pain, and inconvenience. Moreover, a follow-on TURP will be more extensive, with more tissue removed, which means ejaculation will stop entirely. It sounds like being equivalent to a full prostatectomy. The alternative of doing nothing risks the eventual loss of all bladder muscle tone, that is, flaccid bladder, which means using a catheter 3 times a day. I present this information here because I have not seen a discussion in this thread yet on the question of how long aquablation is good for and the chances of simply delaying a TURP. None of the medical professionals I have spoken with is able to report statistics, or even a summary of outcomes of their own patients. Instead I get only a shrug and the comment, "I don't have a crystal ball..."