Tag: RARC

Posts

Article of the week: Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero‐enteric strictures after robotic radical cystectomy

August 14, 2019/by Nari Ahmadi

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial and a visual abstract written by members of the urological community, and a video produced by the authors. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero‐enteric strictures after robotic radical cystectomy

Nariman Ahmadi, Akbar N. Ashrafi, Natalie Hartman, Aliasger Shakir, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Daniel Freitas, Nieroshan Rajarubendra, Carlos Fay, Andre Berger, Mihir M. Desai, Inderbir S. Gill and Monish Aron

USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the impact of indocyanine green (ICG) for assessing ureteric vascularity on the rate of uretero‐enteric stricture formation after robot‐assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD).

Patients and methods

We identified 179 patients undergoing RARC and ICUD between January 2014 and May 2017, and divided the patients into two groups based on the utilisation of ICG for the assessment of ureteric vascularity (non‐ICG group and ICG group). We retrospectively reviewed the medical records to identify the length of ureter excised. Demographic, perioperative outcomes (including 90‐day complications and readmissions), and the rate of uretero‐enteric stricture were compared between the two groups. The two groups were compared using the t‐test for continuous variables and the chi‐squared test for categorical variables. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 132 and 47 patients were in the non‐ICG group and the ICG group, respectively. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes including operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. The ICG group was associated with a greater length of ureter being excised during the uretero‐enteric anastomosis and a greater proportion of patients having long segment (>5 cm) ureteric resection. The median follow‐up was 14 and 12 months in the non‐ICG and ICG groups, respectively. The ICG group was associated with no uretero‐enteric strictures compared to a per‐patient stricture rate of 10.6% and a per‐ureter stricture rate of 6.6% in the non‐ICG group (P = 0.020 and P = 0.013, respectively).

Conclusion

The use of ICG fluorescence to assess distal ureteric vascularity during RARC and ICUD may reduce the risk of ischaemic uretero‐enteric strictures. The technique is simple, safe, and reproducible. Larger studies with longer follow‐up are needed to confirm our findings.

Editorial: Reducing the rate of uretero‐enteric strictures after robot‐assisted cystectomy: a green light for immunofluorescence?

August 14, 2019/by John S. McGrath

In the current edition of the BJUI, Ahmadi et al. [1] from the University of Southern California describe their experience with the use of indocyanine green (ICG) during robot‐assisted radical cystectomy (RC); specifically, they discuss its potential utility in assessing the vascularity of distal ureteric segments ahead of anastomosis to the bowel segment during urinary diversion.

Benign postoperative ureteric strictures are thought to be largely attributable to inadequate vascularization of the distal ureter on account of its segmental blood supply. Despite meticulous dissection technique and avoidance of traction or anastamotic tension, many series still report a stricture rate in the order of 10% in both open and minimally invasive surgery. Conventionally, the left ureter is associated with a higher risk because of its more extensive mobilization and longer trajectory behind the recto‐sigmoid.

Notably, there were early indications in the 1990s that minimally invasive surgery had the potential to increase the risk of ureteric complications, and this was highlighted by various authors pioneering the introduction of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy [2,3,4]. Surgeons at that time cited magnification as a potential culprit, with intra‐operative views suggesting a well‐preserved peri‐ureteric tissue bundle but an ex vivo ureter that appeared more denuded when examined with the ‘naked eye’.

In the present study, the theoretical construct applied was that the use of ICG could potentially remove the subjectivity of the surgeon’s assessment of distal ureteric vascularity and replace it with a more objective visual guide through the use of immunofluorescence after administration of ICG. The study design was an interrupted time series rather than a randomized trial, but was set in the context of a unit where all surgeons reported over a decade of experience each in performing robot‐assisted RC in a high‐volume setting.

Indocyanine green is a fluorescent, non‐toxic tracer that can be visualized with an infra‐red camera but remains non‐visible in conventional white light. It established its initial position within the robotic theatre by being popularized for the assessment of vascularity of renal tumours, particularly during nephron‐sparing surgery [5]. Once injected, there is an initial arterial phase followed by a later tissue perfusion phase where the tissue itself can be seen to fluoresce if vascularized adequately. The initial arterial phase is rapid (30 s), followed several minutes later by the perfusion phase.

After its introduction at the USC Institute of Urology, surgeons used the infra‐red findings of ICG administration to guide the length of distal ureteric resection in preparation for the uretero‐enteric anastomosis. Ureteric stricture rates were assessed at 12–14 months postoperatively based on clinical or radiological suspicion of stricturing. Confirmatory tests included a loopogram or cystogram and functional nuclear imaging. In some cases, nephrostomy and antegrade studies were performed.

The study found a marked reduction in stricture rate, from 10.6% in the non‐ICG group to an undetectable rate in the ICG group at this stage of follow‐up. This was associated with a greater length of resected ureteric segment in the ICG group compared to the non‐ICG group.

If viewed in the context of a single‐centre feasibility study, then the findings suggest a technique that is safe, is reproducible and has the potential to markedly reduce a challenging and not insignificant postoperative complication of RC. The findings would also support the authors’ theoretical construct that ischaemia and fibrosis are the key drivers of ureteric stricturing following RC.

It is of course acknowledged in the paper that further studies across multiple centres are needed for validation, but the findings so far would indicate that extending its further evaluation is warranted. It will also be of interest to see whether surgeons experienced in this technique would eventually develop the expertise to identify a poorly perfused ureter without the need for ICG based on pattern recognition and or greater confidence in excising longer ureteric segments.

References

Ahmadi N, Ashrafi AN, Hartman N et al. Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero‐enteric strictures after robotic radical cystectomy. BJU Int 2019; 124: 302– 7
Ratner LE, Cisek LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995; 60: 1047– 9
Philosophe B, Kuo PC, Schweitzer EJ et al. Laparoscopic vs open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique. Transplantation 1999; 68: 497– 502
Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Kidney Int 2000; 57: 2175– 86
Tobis S, Knopf JK, Silvers CR et al. Near infrared fluorescence imaging after intravenous indocyanine green: initial clinical experience with open partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors. Urology 2012; 79: 958– 64

Video: Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero-enteric strictures following RARC

August 14, 2019/by Nari Ahmadi

Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero‐enteric strictures after robotic radical cystectomy

Abstract

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

View more videos

Article of the Week: Introduction of RARC within an established enhanced recovery programme

August 9, 2017/by admin Z.9

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Introduction of robot-assisted radical cystectomy within an established enhanced recovery programme

Catherine Miller*,†, Nicholas J. Campain†, Rachel Dbeis†, Mark Daugherty†, Nicholas Batchelor†, Elizabeth Waine† and John S. McGrath†

*Urology Department, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, and †Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK

Read the full article

How to Cite

Miller, C., Campain, N. J., Dbeis, R., Daugherty, M., Batchelor, N., Waine, E. and McGrath, J. S. (2017), Introduction of robot-assisted radical cystectomy within an established enhanced recovery programme. BJU International, 120: 265–272. doi: 10.1111/bju.13702

Abstract

Objectives

To describe the implementation phase of a robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) programme including side-effect profiles and impact on length of stay (LOS).

Patients and Methods

In all, 114 consecutive patients (82% male) underwent RARC and urinary diversion between April 2013 and December 2015 [ileal conduit (97 patients) and orthotopic neobladder (17)]. Surgery was performed by two surgeons within a designated regional cancer centre. No exclusion criteria were applied. All patients were managed on the Exeter Enhanced Recovery Pathway (ERP) in a unit where embedded enhanced recovery practice was already established. Data were collected prospectively on the national cystectomy registry – the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Complex Operations Dataset.

Results

RARC was technically feasible in all but one case. The mean operating time was 3–5 h with an overall transfusion rate of 8.8%. There were higher-grade complications (Clavien–Dindo grade III–IV) in 18.4% of patients, with a 30-day mortality rate of 0.9%. The median (range) LOS after RARC was 7 (3–68) days, with a re-admission rate of 18.4%.

Conclusions

The present series shows that RARC can be safely implemented in a unit experienced in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). Case-selection in this setting is not deemed necessary. There are benefits in terms of lower transfusion rates and reduced LOS. The side-effect profile appears to differ from that of open RC, and despite the fact that complication rate is equivalent; ‘technical’ complications are over-represented in the RAS group. As such, they should improve with experience, recognition, and modification of surgical technique. ERPs can be safely applied to all patients undergoing RARC to maximise the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Editorial: Speeding up recovery from radical cystectomy: how low can we go?

August 9, 2017/by James Catto

Radical cystectomy (RC) is the ‘gold standard’ treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BCa) [1]. It offers the best chance of cure in patients with curable disease and excellent palliation in those with local symptoms from advanced disease. Longitudinal reports suggest many patients accept and adapt to the impact of RC, leading to minimal overall impact on their quality of life [2]. As such, RC also offers a viable alternative to BCG for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive BCa. Whilst I recognize the vital role that chemotherapy and radiotherapy play in treating this disease, and that radiotherapy may be a better choice for some patients than RC, it is the morbidity from RC that hinders its wider use and encourages alternatives [3]. For example, studies in the USA show that up to one-third of patients with muscle-invasive cancers do not receive radical treatment [4], and implementation of centralized cancer services in the UK has only now shown survival improvements, as morbidity from RC comes down [5]. The lowering of peri-operative morbidity and mortality from RC is changing the face of the operation and increasing its use.

In this month’s issue of BJUI, Miller et al. [6] combine robot-assisted minimal access surgery with enhanced recovery to report outcomes in a consecutive series of ‘state-of-the-art’ RCs in their study from Exeter, UK. The authors show consistent improvements in outcome, such that length of stay halved over the duration of study recruitment. Importantly, recovery becomes more predictable (as shown by the converging mean and median length of stay figures), although it is unclear as to how many patients had prolonged stays. Whilst the authors should be congratulated for their efforts in delivering this service and for charting its implementation so meticulously, some key descriptive findings are missing. For example, what is the extent of the variation in their outcomes (range and quartiles) and do the data differ among surgeons? What happened to the 25% of patients who stayed longer than 10 days? Did all patients receive all components of their enhanced recovery programme, and if not, which were the most impactful? How did length of stay and complication rates differ by reconstructive choice and reconstructive location (intra- or extracorporeal)? Did patient selection stay the same over time, or did improved outcomes lower the ‘fit for cystectomy’ bar? Many of these answers will be missing, given that the primary source of information was the BAUS major operations registry. This self-completed dataset is extremely valuable for comparisons between units and trends over times, but has limited data complexity and granularity. Finally, whilst the field is moving towards total intracorporeal surgery, the reported complication rates appear similar for extra- and intracorporeal reconstruction, questioning the need for the added complexity of intracorporeal surgery.

Economists, commissioners and patients will want to know the importance of the forces driving these improved outcomes. Do the better outcomes reflect centralization of services, the team’s learning curve, the meticulous use of enhanced recovery or minimally invasive surgery through robotics? The latter has vastly different cost implications from the others. My guess is that, whilst all of these aspects were important, it was volume of service (from centralization) and enhanced recovery that were the main contributors. I speak having had a similar experience in my unit, although we started robotic surgery at a later date than did the present authors, and in the knowledge that this group previously published the dramatic impact of enhanced recovery on their length of stays after open RC [7].

Regardless of these concerns, the outcomes are to be welcomed by urologists and patients, and the team should be congratulated. As length of hospital stay becomes shorter, our next scientific focus should be on out-of-hospital recovery. We rarely see data on time taken to return to normal activity and on how patients adjust after surgery. Whilst return to work is important for younger patients, many patients with bladder cancer are retired so for these patients it is return to quality of life that matters most. This question becomes even more important in an era of centralized care, where many patients recover away from their surgical teams and, conversely, surgical teams are less aware of problems and outcomes. Perhaps it will be out of the hospital that the effort and cost of minimally invasive surgery are justified.

James W.F. Catto

Academic Urology Unit, University of Shefﬁeld, Shefﬁeld, UK

Read the full article

References

1 Witjes JA, Comperat E, Cowan NC et al. EAU guidelines on muscle- invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2013 guidelines. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 778–92

2 Hardt J, Filipas D, Hohenfellner R, Egle UT. Quality of life in patients with bladder carcinoma after cystectomy: ﬁrst results of a prospective study. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 1–12

3 Shabsigh A, Korets R, Vora KC et al. Deﬁning early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 164–74

4 Gore JL, Litwin MS, Lai J et al. Use of radical cystectomy for patients with invasive bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 802–11

5 Hounsome LS, Verne J, McGrath JS, Gillatt DA. Trends in operative caseload and mortality rates after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in England for 1998–2010. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1056–62

6 Miller C, Campain NJ, Dbeis R et al. Introduction of robot-assisted radical cystectomy within an established enhanced recovery programme. BJU Int 2017; 120: 265–72

7 Smith J, Pruthi RS, McGrath J. Enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Nat Rev Urol 2014; 11: 437–4

Editorial: Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery; what do we know?

June 8, 2016/by Carl Wijburg

The introduction of the daVinci robotic surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has led to a continuous discussion about the cost-effectiveness of its use. The capital costs and extra costs per procedure for robot-assisted procedures are well known, but there are limited data on healthcare consumption in the longer term. In this issue of BJUI, a retrospective study investigated the NHS-registered, relevant care activities up to three years after surgery comparing robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic, and open surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy [1].

The robotic system is particularly useful in difficult to perform laparoscopic surgeries, which are easier to perform with the daVinci system due to improved three-dimensional vision, ergonomics, and additional dexterity of the instruments. Because the use of the robotic system is more costly, to justify its use the outcomes for patients should be improved. Therefore, more detailed information about the clinical and oncological outcomes, as well as the incidence of complications after surgery with the daVinci system, is needed.

Lower rates of positive surgical margins for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open and laparoscopic RP have been reported [2]. There also is evidence of an earlier recovery of functional outcomes, such as continence. RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status compared with open RP and reduced use of androgen-deprivation therapy and radiotherapy after RP, which has important implications for quality of life and costs. Ramsay et al. [3] reported that RARP could be cost-effective in the UK with a minimum volume of 100–150 cases per year per robotic system.

Centralisation of complex procedures will not only result in better outcomes, but also facilitate optimal economical usage of expensive medical devices. Furthermore, the skills learned to perform the RARP procedure can be used during other procedures, such as robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and radical cystectomy (RARC). The recent report by Buse et al. [4] confirms that RAPN is cost-effective in preventing perioperative complications in a high-volume centre, when compared with the open procedure. Minimally invasive techniques for complex procedures, such as a RC, take more time to perform, but result in less blood loss. A systematic review by Novara et al. [5] showed a longer operation time for RARC, but fewer transfusions and fewer complications compared with open surgery. However, there is no solid evidence about the cost-effectiveness of this technique to date. The RAZOR trial (randomised trial of open versus robot assisted radical cystectomy, DOI: 10.1111/bju.12699) is likely to provide some answers about differences in cost, complications, and quality of life when the results of the study become available later this year.

Additionally, the robotic system has been shown to shorten the learning curve of complex laparoscopic procedures in simulation models [6]. Recently, a newly structured curriculum to teach RARP has been validated by the European Association of Urology-Robotic Urology Section [7]. The effect of the shorter learning curve on the cost of the procedures has not yet been well studied for cost-effectiveness. However, due to the shorter learning curves, patients have lower risks of complications, which from the patients’ perspective is more important than any increased costs.

The study reported in this issue [1]; however, does not include the ‘out of pocket’ expenses of patients, it does not report on the differences in patient and tumour characteristics, and outcomes such as complications and oncological safety. These issues are all challenges to be addressed in a thorough prospective (randomised) trial on the cost-effectiveness of the use of robot-assisted surgery, including quality-of-life measurements and complications of the surgical procedures. In the Netherlands the RACE trial (comparative effectiveness study open RC vs RARC, www.racestudie.nl) started in 2015 and the results are expected in 2018–2019.

Read the full article

Carl J. Wijburg

Department of Urology, Robotic Surgery , Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands

References

1 Hughes D, Camp C, O’Hara J, Adshead J. Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 2016; 117: 940–7

2 HuJC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666–72

3 Ramsay C, Pickard R , Soomro N et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical beneﬁt and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1–313

4 Buse S, Hach CE, Klumpen P et al. Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for the prevention of perioperative complications. World J Urol 2015; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:10.1007/s00345-015-1742-x

5 Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 376–401

6 Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RS, McGrath JS, Vine SJ. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 2015; 9: 67–73

7 Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 2015; 116: 93–101

Reaching a consensus…robotic radical cystectomy

May 9, 2014/4 Comments/by Declan Murphy

What is your impression of a “consensus statement”? We have these periodically in urology and they do tend to get widely read. One wonders, how difficult could it be for a bunch of urologists to reach a consensus on something?? Especially if, at the end of the day, we are all agreeing to cut something out?! It’s not like radiation or doing nothing are on the cards for this particular topic! How difficult could it be?

Well, let me give you a peak into the workings of the robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) Consensus Conference which took place at the City of Hope Hospital in California last weekend, the findings to be known as “The Pasadena Consensus Statement on RARC”. This two-day conference took place in the beautiful foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California, and was hosted by Dr. Tim Wilson, Chief of Urology at City of Hope. The event was co-ordinated by the eminent New England Research Institute, led by Dr. Ray Rosen, and funded by a generous philanthropist affiliated with the hospital. The format of the meeting was familiar, as there has already been a Pasadena Consensus Statement on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, which was published in European Urology in 2012 along with four systematic reviews, all of which have been highly-cited. The conference invited a group of leaders in radical cystectomy, open as well as robotic, to participate and the resulting faculty features some highly-published figures in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including some of the pioneers of RARC. These include:

Tim Wilson, City of Hope, California
Bernie Bochner, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, New York
Peter Wiklund, Karolinska, Sweden
Khurshid Guru, Roswell Park, New York
Eila Skinner, Stanford University, California
Joan Palou, Fundacio-Puigvert, Barcelona
Jim Catto, Editor-in-Chief, European Urology, Sheffield
Giacomo Novara, Padua, Italy
Bertrand Yuh, City of Hope, California
Declan Murphy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne
Magnus Annerstedt, Stockholm, Sweden
Arnulf Stenzl, Tuebingen, Germany
Kevin Chan, City of Hope, California
Jim Peabody, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Detroit

Photo courtesy of Dr Jim Catto.

The goal was to review the current evidence for RARC (by way of systematic reviews and other detailed review), and to agree a “Best Practices” white paper. We had been split into working groups and had submitted slides overviewing our topics ahead of time. The two-day schedule then allowed presentation of these slides with (very) detailed critique and discussion. Systematic review maestro Giacomo Novara had worked with Bertrand Yuh to complete the systematic reviews prior to the conference and findings from these also informed much discussion. Bernie Bochner (the most knowledgeable person I have ever met on the topic of muscle-invasive bladder cancer!), kindly agreed to present the findings from the MSKCC randomised controlled trial which are key data in this area. This paper is about to be submitted so the Pasadena group will be able to include these findings in the final papers.

So was it a cosy chat in the Californian sunshine with much nodding of heads on key topics? Well, occasionally! The group were very sociable with very lively interaction, but there was certainly robust discussion on certain topics. Some of these leaked out on Twitter as one might expect with a few prominent uro-twitterati in the room (@jimcatto, @giacomonovara, @declangmurphy, @joanfundi, @AStenzl, @jamesopeabody), and with a lively response from social media enthusiasts from around the world getting involved in the #RARC conversation (@dytcmd, @@uretericbud, @daviesbj, @dmsomford, @matthayn, @kahmed198, @uroegg, @UROncdoc, @urogill, @urorao, @nickbrookMD, @joshmeeks, @wandering_gu, @urologymatch, @urology_verona, @chrisfilson, @mattbultitude, @clebacle, @chapinMD, @ggandaglia, @urogeek, and more) – every corner of the globe involved!

At certain times, the weight of data for open radical cystectomy was difficult to counter, and led to lively discussion between Bernie and Khurshid. For confidentiality reasons, we can’t reveal key findings until the final papers have been written and published, but Twitter does allow a sneak peak:

A general lament was the lack of high-quality data overall, as tweeted in this quote from Arnulf Stenzl:

However, some of the big publications from the pioneering centres, especially the data from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC), and the RCT from Memorial have given us plenty to consider.

Having been involved in another large consensus statement recently (The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer), I can tell you that these statements feature very robust discussion before consensus is reached, and occasionally consensus is not reached leading to topics being omitted. The chosen faculty for such statements are highly-knowledgeable leaders in the field, but often have views which are highly discordant. The Chair has a great challenge to moderate so that the final statements are agreeable to all, and I am sure that the Pasadena Statement on RARC will prove of great interest to all working in this field.

[The Pasadena Consensus Statement Best Practices white paper will be published in European Urology in coming months, along with two systematic reviews and a Surgery in Motion technique paper]

Declan Murphy is a urologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, and Associate Editor at BJUI. Twitter @declangmurphy

Disclosure – Declan Murphy received support to cover travel and accommodation costs through the New England Research Institute. No industry support was received by any participants in this conference.