Møller and Christensen encourage us to revisit key principles of action research and reconsider the researcher’s outsider role as a means to better understand complexity in practice.

Background: Robotic surgery is well established across multiple surgical specialities in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (ROI). We aimed to elucidate current surgical trainee experience of and attitudes to robotic surgery in a surgical training programme across the UK and ROI to determine the future role of robotic surgery in international surgical training programmes. Methods: A pan-specialty trainee cross-sectional study was performed on behalf of the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) using mixed-methodology. Round 1: a digital questionnaire was disseminated to all ASiT members. Round 2: 'live-polling' was performed prior to and following the Robotic Surgery plenary session convened at the ASiT 2020 International Conference (Birmingham). Data analysis was performed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: Three hundred and four responses were analysed (n = 244 digital questionnaire, n = 60 live-polling). Overall, 73.8% (n = 180) of trainees would value greater access to robotic surgery training. 73.4% (n = 179) believed that robotic surgery was important for the future of their desired specialty and 77.2% (n = 156) believed it should be incorporated into formal surgical training. Qualitative analysis identified that trainees believe that robotic training should have a formal role in surgical training. Perceived disadvantages of robotic surgery experience in surgical training included expense and the current impact of consultant robotic learning curves on training. Conclusion: Current surgical trainees desire greater access to robotic surgery in surgical training. Robotic surgery is developing an increasing role in current surgical practice and it is important that it is introduced in a timely, evidence-based fashion to surgical trainees at an appropriate stage of training.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

No abstract