Introduction Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) represents the most recent innovation in the management of gallstones. Whilst RC is becoming increasingly widespread, the evidence base surrounding its introduction has not been characterised. When evaluating innovative surgical techniques, adherence to regulatory and governance procedures is essential in maintaining patient safety. This study aims to appraise the reporting of studies of RC, focussing on regulatory procedures. Method Systematic searches identified all published studies reporting RC. Data collection was based on the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) framework, and included general study characteristics, governance approvals, trial registration, study funding, conflicts of interests, and information communicated to patients. Results Systematic searches identified 1425 abstracts. Of the 90 full-text papers included, only three were randomised controlled trials. The majority (71%) were single-centre studies. Conflicts of interest were common, with 11 (12%) studies funded by the robot manufacturer, and 23 (26%) reporting conflicts related to authors. Ethical approval was confirmed in 51 (57%) studies; four reported prior registration with a register. Only forty-two studies (47%) documented obtaining patient consent for study participation. Only four documented discussions regarding the innovative nature of RC. In ten, modifications to the robot or technique were described, but it was not apparent if patients were informed of these. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlights multiple deficiencies in the reporting of regulatory procedures in the evaluation of RC. Improved reporting is required in studies of RC to ensure transparency, interpretability, and the safe, evidence-based adoption of new technologies into clinical practice.

Aims Several centres described a ‘lockdown effect’: a reduction in emergency surgical admissions during national lockdown (23/03/20-01/06/20). The extent and reproducibility of this is unclear. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency general surgical activity in a district general hospital. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients admitted under general surgery and urology between 01/01/2017-31/12/2020 using coding data. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare the total monthly admissions, admissions by diagnosis and monthly operations performed between the ‘first wave’ (April-May 2020) and ‘average’ (all months 2017-2019), and between the ‘second wave’ (November-December 2020) and average. Results Overall emergency admissions in 2020 were reduced compared to the mean 2017-2019 (4498 vs 5037). Monthly admissions were significantly reduced in the first wave compared to 2017-2019 (mean monthly admissions=284.5 vs 419.8; p < 0.001) with the greatest reduction in patients with non-specific abdominal pain (mean=58 vs 109; p = <0.001). A significant reduction in monthly admissions with pancreatitis (mean=8.0 vs 14.6; p = 0.010) and diverticulitis (mean=10.5 vs 18.8; p = 0.028) were also observed. This effect was less apparent during the second wave (mean total admissions=384.5 vs 419.8; p = 0.249). Monthly emergency operations were reduced in both the first wave compared to average (68 vs 101.9; p = 0.007) and the second wave (74.5 vs 101.9; p = 0.025). Conclusions We found strong evidence of a ‘lockdown effect’ in our centre during the first wave. The cause is unclear and likely to be multifactorial. Further research is needed to evaluate whether surgical patients came to harm as a result.

BANTI'S DISEASE IN TWO BROTHERS JBoRNAL 817 We felt that it would be interesting to submit these two cases of proved Banti's disease to a thorough serological analysis. The parents' blood groups were as follows. Father: Al,