 Okay. Thank you. If it works. So I think that first we will both admit the concept that partial nephrectomy must always remain the only goal of this surgery. And the way to do it will remain optional, of course. So for those who are not surgeons, this is what robotic surgery looks like. The surgeon is sitting in a console. He's moving the instrument with joystick. He has a 3D view. So he's completely merged inside the patient. And on the other side, you have the patients with laparoscopic tubes that are moved by the surgeon. So in my institution, we have a 10-year experience on robotic surgery. We do right now for more than 400 cases a year. And kidney surgery represents close to 150 cases per year concerning mostly partial nephrectomy, but also some kind of very large radical nephrectomy or patients for a live-in donor nephrectomy. So which tumor will be accessible for this kind of surgery? Of course, the small localized perveric tumor, but also some larger tumor that you can see here on a solitary kidney that will be done with a selective clamping. Or this very posterior tumor, and I like to do it in this case, laparoscopically so you don't have to open the peritoneum. So this is how the surgery looks like very quickly. So you have the external view, and then we dissect the heel of the kidney so we can clamp the artery and the vein. And as soon as it is clamped, you can just remove the tumor. In this case, it was a 4.5 centimeter tumor. Then as soon as the tumor is... You can open, even open the cavity in this case. As soon as the tumor is removed, it's placed in a small bag, and then you can just repair the kidney to make hemostasis and to avoid any perspirative bleeding, which of course sometimes can occur. So as soon as the kidney is repaired, you will be declaim the kidney and be sure the hemostasis is correct. So this was our last data from last year. So as you see, I do both trans- and retroparitoneal approach. If we compare tumor a little bit larger for transparitoneal and smaller for retrop, but we can go up to 8 centimeter depending on the patient. We always say that robotic surgery is longer. In fact, it's most of the time less than two hours and it's even quicker with the lomboscopic approach. With a very controlled warm ischemia, which is most of the time less than 15 minutes. And the hospital stay, and we will see a little bit later that is the major advantage of robotic surgery is the hospital stay. With also a very well controlled oncological outcome with a positive margin of 1.6%. So with, of course, observe a few complications. Most of those will be hematoma, postoperative hematomas. Most of them were just under surveillance, few transfusions, and just one patient needed embolization of this bleeding. We also had one patient with a urinoma. So in our institution, we did compare the robotic parasylonephrectomy and the open parasylonephrectomy. So on 100 consecutive patients, we saw that the mean tumor size were not different between those two groups. And the only difference were the high complexity score, which was a little bit higher in the open surgery group. So we compared the operative time, of course, which is almost the same between open and robotic parasylonephrectomy. Clamping time, 17.5 minutes. That was the first part of the experience. So it's why it's a little bit higher. Than the previous data that I've shown. So I think that right now, we go even faster with the robot than in open surgery. So the main difference was the length of stay, which is 3.8 days for robotic surgery and 6.8 days in open surgery. So the robotic parasylonephrectomy was better than open parasylonephrectomy in terms of blood loss and hospital stay. And it has the same rate of complication, warm ischemia, and impact on renal function. So we could say that robotic parasylonephrectomy is only accessible for small tumors. So in a survey in France, around six French academic centers between 2007 and 2011, we recorded 220 parasyl, robotic parasylonephrectomy, and 54 patients had a tumor over 4 centimeter with intermediate and most of those patients had intermediate and high risk scorn nephronetry. So as you can see, the warm ischemia is a little bit higher, but we still have quite a normal operative time. It's a little bit higher also. It's turning around three hours, and the warm ischemia is 23 minutes. Complication rates. Of course, if you have larger tumor, you must see some more complications. So we had nine complications over 54 patients. Only three positive margins, which makes the outcome, oncological outcomes, quite similar to the open literature. So why robotic parasylonephrectomy is more gold standard, at least in our department, just because also we completely switch from open to parasylonephrectomy. This year we are expecting to do more than 100 robotic parasyls, and only probably 15% of those will be open. We did 50 robotic parasylonephrectomy for the first month of this year, and only six were open. So why also we choose to switch completely to robotic parasyls? Because we've seen the same oncological outcomes, shorter hospitals stay with a quicker recovery for the patient and less morbidity. When you see an open scar and you have complications of that open scar, most of the patients don't want to go for that kind of surgery anymore. But nephron sparing surgery remains, I think, a challenging surgery, even open, and of course it is robotically also. So I think it's the kind of surgery that should be done in a referral center with, I think, a high volume patient. Thank you. Thank you, Christophe.