Understanding virtual urology clinics: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to identify the clinical, fiscal and environmental evidence on the use of urological telehealth and/or virtual clinic strategies. Our secondary aim was to highlight research gaps in this rapidly evolving field. METHODS: Our PROSPERO registered (CRD42019151946) systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Review Database was performed for original research articles pertaining to adult urology telehealth or virtual clinic strategies. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment performed according to Cochrane 2.0 RoB or Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for non-randomised studies. RESULTS: 5,813 participants met inclusion from 18 original articles (2 randomised controlled trials; 10 prospective; 6 retrospective). Urology sub-specialities: Uro-oncology (n=6), General urology (n=8), Endo-urology (n=2), and Lower urinary tract symptoms and/or incontinence (n=2). Across all sub-specialties, prospective studies utilising VC reported: primary median VC discharge rate of 16.6% (IQR 14.7%-29.8%) and primary median face-to-face (FTF) clinic referral rate of 32.4% (IQR 15.5%-53.3%). Further, direct cost analysis demonstrated a median annual cost-savings of £56,232 (IQR £46,260-£61,116). Grade II and IIIb complications were reported in two acute ureteric colic studies, with a rate of 0.20% (3/1,534) and 0.13% (2/1,534), respectively. Annual carbon footprint avoided ranged from 0.7 to 4.35 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, depending on mode of transport utilised. Patient satisfaction was inconsistently reported, and assessments lacked prospective evaluation using validated questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Virtual urology clinics are a promising new platform which can offer clinical, financial and environmental benefits to support an increasing urological referral burden. Further prospective evidence is required across urological subspecialties to confirm equivalency and safety against traditional face-to-face assessment.