Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2022 Aug;26(36):1–152. doi: 10.3310/TBFZ0277

Synthetic sling or artificial urinary sphincter for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: the MASTER non-inferiority RCT.

Lynda Constable, Paul Abrams, David Cooper, Mary Kilonzo, Nikki Cotterill, Chris Harding, Marcus J Drake, Megan N Pardoe, Alison McDonald, Rebecca Smith, John Norrie, Kirsty McCormack, Craig Ramsay, Alan Uren, Tony Mundy, Cathryn Glazener, Graeme MacLennan
PMCID: PMC9421661  PMID: 35972773

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence is common in men after prostate surgery and can be difficult to improve. Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence, but it requires specialist surgical skills, and revisions may be necessary. In addition, the sphincter is relatively expensive and its operation requires adequate patient dexterity. New surgical approaches include the male synthetic sling, which is emerging as a possible alternative. However, robust comparable data, derived from randomised controlled trials, on the relative safety and efficacy of the male synthetic sling and the artificial urinary sphincter are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the male synthetic sling with those of the artificial urinary sphincter surgery in men with persistent stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with a parallel non-randomised cohort and embedded qualitative component. Randomised controlled trial allocation was carried out by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1), minimised on previous prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate), radiotherapy (or not, in relation to prostate surgery) and centre. Surgeons and participants were not blind to the treatment received. Non-randomised cohort allocation was participant and/or surgeon preference.

SETTING

The trial was set in 28 UK urological centres in the NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery for whom surgery was deemed appropriate. Exclusion criteria included previous sling or artificial urinary sphincter surgery, unresolved bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture after prostate surgery, and an inability to give informed consent or complete trial documentation.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared male synthetic sling with artificial urinary sphincter.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The clinical primary outcome measure was men's reports of continence (assessed from questions 3 and 4 of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form) at 12 months post randomisation (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%). The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness (assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months post randomisation).

RESULTS

In total, 380 men were included in the randomised controlled trial (n = 190 in each group), and 99 out of 100 men were included in the non-randomised cohort. In terms of continence, the male sling was non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter (intention-to-treat estimated absolute risk difference -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.117 to 0.048; non-inferiority p = 0.003), indicating a lower success rate in those randomised to receive a sling, but with a confidence interval excluding the non-inferiority margin of -15%. In both groups, treatment resulted in a reduction in incontinence symptoms (as measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form). Between baseline and 12 months' follow-up, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score fell from 16.1 to 8.7 in the male sling group and from 16.4 to 7.5 in the artificial urinary sphincter group (mean difference for the time point at 12 months 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 2.49; p = 0.032). The number of serious adverse events was small (male sling group, n = 8; artificial urinary sphincter group, n = 15; one man in the artificial urinary sphincter group experienced three serious adverse events). Quality-of-life scores improved and satisfaction was high in both groups. Secondary outcomes that showed statistically significant differences favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. Outcomes of the non-randomised cohort were similar. The male sling cost less than the artificial sphincter but was associated with a smaller quality-adjusted life-year gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for male slings compared with an artificial urinary sphincter suggests that there is a cost saving of £425,870 for each quality-adjusted life-year lost. The probability that slings would be cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year was 99%.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up beyond 24 months is not available. More specific surgical/device-related pain outcomes were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Continence rates improved from baseline, with the male sling non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling.

FUTURE WORK

Participant reports of any further surgery, satisfaction and quality of life at 5-year follow-up will inform longer-term outcomes. Administration of an additional pain questionnaire would provide further information on pain levels after both surgeries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN49212975.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Leakage of urine associated with physical exertion (e.g. sporting activities, sneezing or coughing) is common in men who have undergone prostate surgery, but it is difficult to improve. Many men still leak urine 12 months after their prostate surgery and may continue to wear protective pads or sheaths. The most common operation to improve incontinence is implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter. An artificial urinary sphincter is an inflatable cuff that is placed around the urethra, the tube that drains urine from the bladder. The cuff is inflated and compresses the urethra to prevent leaking. When the man needs to pass urine, he must deflate the cuff by squeezing a pump placed in his scrotum, which releases the compression on the urethra and allows the bladder to empty. Recently, a new device, the male sling (made from non-absorbable plastic mesh), has been developed. The sling, which is surgically inserted under the urethra, supports the bladder, but, in contrast to the artificial sphincter, it does not need to be deactivated by a pump and, therefore, the patient does not need to do anything to operate it. A sling is also easier for the surgeon to insert than a sphincter. However, in some men, the sling does not provide enough improvement in incontinence symptoms and another operation, to place an artificial urinary sphincter, is needed. The aim of this study was to determine if the male sling was as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter in treating men with bothersome incontinence after prostate surgery. The study took the form of a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard and most reliable way to compare treatments) in which men were randomised (allocated at random to one of two groups using a computer) to either a male sling or an artificial urinary sphincter operation. We asked men how they got on in the first 2 years after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, incontinence and quality of life significantly improved and complications were rare. A small number of men did require another operation to improve their incontinence, and it was more likely that an artificial urinary sphincter was needed, rather than another sling operation, if a male sling was not successful. Satisfaction was high in both groups, but it was significantly higher in the artificial urinary sphincter group than in the male sling group. Those who received a male sling were less likely than those who received an artificial urinary sphincter to say that they would recommend their surgery to a friend.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Constable L, Cotterill N, Cooper D, Glazener C, Drake MJ, Forrest M, et al. Male synthetic sling versus artificial urinary sphincter trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2501-2 doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2501-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Glazener C, Boachie C, Buckley B, Cochran C, Dorey G, Grant A, et al. Conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in Men After Prostate Surgery (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(24). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15240 doi: 10.3310/hta15240. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Glazener C, Boachie C, Buckley B, Cochran C, Dorey G, Grant A, et al. Urinary incontinence in men after formal one-to-one pelvic-floor muscle training following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2011;378:328–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60751-4 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60751-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah ÁN, da Silva EM. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;9:CD008306. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008306.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008306.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men: Management. London: NICE; 2010. [PubMed]
  6. Goldman H, Averbeck M, Bruschini H, et al. Surgical Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Men. In Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, editors. Incontinence. 6th edn. Bristol: International Continence Society; 2017. pp. 1629–1740.
  7. Burkhard FC, Bosch JLHR, Cruz F, Lemack GE, Nambiar AK, Thiruchelvam N, et al. Urinary Incontinence. URL: https://uroweb.org/guideline/urinary-incontinence/ (accessed 27 October 2020).
  8. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2018-19 (accessed November 2019).
  9. British Association of Urological Surgeons. Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes Data: Summary and Timescale of the Data. URL: www.baus.org.uk/patients/surgical_outcomes/radical_prostatectomy/timescales.aspx (accessed 30 October 2020).
  10. Armstrong N, Vale L, Deverill M, Nabi G, McClinton S, N’Dow J, et al. BPE Study Group. Surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement: cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2009;338:b1288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b1288 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Imamoglu MA, Tuygun C, Bakirtas H, Yiğitbasi O, Kiper A. The comparison of artificial urinary sphincter implantation and endourethral macroplastique injection for the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence. Eur Urol 2005;47:209–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.08.019 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J, ICIQ Advisory Board. The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol 2006;175:1063–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00348-4 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00348-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. ICIQ Group. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module (ICIQ-MLUTS). URL: https://iciq.net/iciq-mluts (accessed 27 October 2020).
  14. ICIQ Group. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Male Sexual Matters Associated With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module (ICIQ-MLUTSsex). URL: https://iciq.net/iciq-mlutssex (accessed 27 October 2020).
  15. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L. URL: https://euroqol.org/ (accessed 27 October 2020).
  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  18. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury, University of Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2019.
  19. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 25 January 2020).
  20. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2017–18. 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 20 January 2020).
  21. Public Health Scotland. Theatres: Costs and Detailed Tables. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-topics/Finance/Costs/Detailed-Tables/Theatres.asp (accessed 20 November 2019).
  22. NHS Business Services Authority. NHS Electronic Drug Tariff. 2015. URL: www.drugtariff.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/ (accessed 15 September 2019).
  23. Office for National Statistics. Earnings and Hours Worked, All Employees: ASHE Table 1. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/allemployeesashetable1 (accessed 17 January 2020).
  24. NHS. NHS Prescription Charges. URL: www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/nhs-services-and-treatments/how-much-nhs-prescription-charge/ (accessed 16 January 2020).
  25. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004;42:851–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001 doi: 10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001. [DOI]
  29. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University; 2005.
  30. Dowie J, Kaltoft MK, Nielsen JB, Salkeld G. Caveat emptor NICE: biased use of cost-effectiveness is inefficient and inequitable. F1000Res 2015;4:1078. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7191.1 doi: 10.12688/f1000research.7191.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables – Life Expectancy in the UK: 2017 to 2019. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2017to2019 (accessed 15 May 2020).
  32. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(36). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8360 doi: 10.3310/hta8360. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Office for National Statistics. Interim Life Tables. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/singleyearlifetablesuk1980to2018 (accessed 12 October 2019).
  34. Leon P, Chartier-Kastler E, Roupret M, Ambrogi V, Mozer P, Phe V. Artificial urinary sphincter in men. BJU Int 2015;115:951–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12848 doi: 10.1111/bju.12848. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Venn SN, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR. The long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincters. J Urol 2000;164:702–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67285-0 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67285-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Fulford SC, Sutton C, Bales G, Hickling M, Stephenson TP. The fate of the ‘modern’ artificial urinary sphincter with a follow-up of more than 10 years. Br J Urol 1997;79:713–16. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00151.x doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00151.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Al-Busaidi ZQ. Qualitative research and its uses in health care. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2008;8:11–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009;339:b3496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3496 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Futing Liao T. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589 doi: 10.4135/9781412950589. [DOI]
  40. Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2015;20:1408. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281 doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281. [DOI]
  41. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  42. Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.
  43. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1374–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11006.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11006.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Donovan J, Peters T, Abrams P, Brooks S, de la Rosette J, Schafer W. Scoring the short form ICSmale SF questionnaire. J Urol 2000;164:1948–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66926-1 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66926-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Frankel SJ, Donovan JL, Peters TI, Abrams P, Dabhoiwala NF, Osawa D, Lin AT. Sexual dysfunction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:677–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00044-4 doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00044-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Harris IA, Harris AM, Naylor JM, Adie S, Mittal R, Dao AT. Discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:722–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.044 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.044. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Marschall-Kehrel D, Roberts RG, Brubaker L. Patient-reported outcomes in overactive bladder: the influence of perception of condition and expectation for treatment benefit. Urology 2006;68(Suppl. 2):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.046 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.046. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Channel Four Television Corporation. Embarrassing Bodies. London: Channel Four Television Corporation; 2007.
  49. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ. A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery 2006;139:469–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014 doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert MM, Fishman IJ. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective results. J Urol 2001;166:1755–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65668-6 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65668-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Dugan E, Cohen SJ, Bland DR, Preisser JS, Davis CC, Suggs PK, McGann P. The association of depressive symptoms and urinary incontinence among older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:413–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04699.x doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04699.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Guideline [NG 123]: 1.5: Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng123/chapter/Recommendations#surgical-management-of-stress-urinary-incontinence (accessed 27 October 2020).
  53. Davey M, What does pelvic mesh do and why are women suing over it? – explainer. The Guardian, 31 August 2017. URL: www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/vaginal-pelvic-mesh-explainer
  54. BBC News. Mesh 'last option' for incontinence. BBC News, 9 October 2018. URL: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783127
  55. BBC News. 'Immediate' halt on use of mesh implants in Scotland. BBC News, 12 September 2018. URL: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45498019
  56. British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Limited. Insertion of a Synthetic Sling for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Men. 2021. www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/Patients/Leaflets/Synthetic%20sling%20male.pdf (accessed 27 October 2020).
  57. Haskell H. Cumberlege review expose stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare. BMJ 2020;370:m3099. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3099 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3099. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, Brindle L, Salter E, Gillatt D, et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Kamyabi N, Nakhaei M, Nasiri A, Akbari E, Sharifzadeh G. Effects of video- and pamphlet-based patient educations on anxiety and satisfaction among candidates for gastroscopy. Mod Car J 2016;13:e10647. https://doi.org/10.17795/modernc.10647 doi: 10.17795/modernc.10647. [DOI]
  61. American Urological Association. Incontinence After Prostate Treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline (2019). URL: www.auanet.org/guidelines/incontinence-after-prostate-treatment (accessed 26 November 2020).
  62. Tutolo M, Cornu JN, Bauer RM, Ahyai S, Bozzini G, Heesakkers J, et al. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn 2019;38:710–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23901 doi: 10.1002/nau.23901. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. European Association of Urology (EAU). EAU Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence in Adults. EAU; 2020. URL: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/media/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urinary-Incontinence-2020.pdf
  64. Royal College of Surgeons of England. Future of Surgery. URL: https://futureofsurgery.rcseng.ac.uk/?_ga=2.195177260.1807836087.1586861042-2095287332.1586861042 (accessed 27 October 2020).

RESOURCES