Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

This article examines the evolution of bariatric surgery, with a focus on emerging technologies such as robotics and laparoscopy. In the case of gastric bypass, no significant differences have emerged between the two techniques in terms of hospitalization duration, weight loss, weight regain, or 30-day mortality. Robotic surgery, while requiring more time in the operating room, has been associated with lower rates of bleeding, mortality, transfusions, and infections. In revisional bariatric surgery, the robotic approach has shown fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and a reduced need for conversion to open surgery. In the case of sleeve gastrectomy, robotic procedures have required more time and longer postoperative stays but have recorded lower rates of transfusions and bleeding compared to laparoscopy. However, robotic surgeries have proven to be more costly and potentially more complex in terms of postoperative complications. The review has also addressed the topic of the single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal switch (SADIS), finding comparable results between robotic and laparoscopic techniques, although robotic procedures have required more time in the operating room. Robotic technology has proven to be safe and effective, albeit with slightly longer operative times in some cases.

Abdominal wall hernia repair, a common surgical procedure, includes various techniques to minimize postoperative complications and enhance outcomes. This review focuses on the comparison between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in treating inguinal and ventral hernias, presenting the ongoing situation of this topic. A systematic search identified relevant studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic approaches for inguinal and ventral hernias. Randomized control trials, retrospective, and prospective studies published after 1 January 2000, were included. Search terms such as hernia, inguinal, ventral, laparoscopy, robotic, and surgery were used. A total of 23 articles were included for analysis. Results indicated similar short-term outcomes for robotic and laparoscopic techniques in inguinal hernia repair, with robotic groups experiencing less postoperative pain. However, longer operative times and higher costs were associated with robotic repair. Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated potential benefits, including shorter hospital stay, lower recurrence and lower reoperation rates. While robotic surgery offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, challenges including costs and training requirements need consideration. The choice between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for abdominal wall hernias should be tailored based on individual surgeon expertise and resource availability, emphasizing a balanced evaluation of benefits and challenges.

Background: Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety. Methods: The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres. Discussion: Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

The functional disease of the esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) is one of the most common health problems. It often happens that patients suffering from GERD need surgical management. The laparoscopic fundoplication has been considered the gold standard surgical treatment for functional diseases of the EGJ. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate functional outcomes after robotic fundoplication compared with conventional laparoscopic fundoplication. A prospective search of online databases was performed by two independent reviewers using the search string “robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication”, including all the articles from 1996 to December 2021. The risk of bias within each study was assessed with the Cochrane ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0 tools. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. In addition, sixteen studies were included in the final analysis, involving only four RCTs. The primary endpoints were functional outcomes after laparoscopic (LF) and robotic fundoplication (RF). No significant differences between the two groups were found in 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.73), persistence of symptomatology at follow-up (p = 0.60), recurrence (p = 0.36), and reoperation (p = 0.81). The laparoscopic fundoplication represents the gold standard treatment for the functional disease of the EGJ. According to our results, the robotic approach seems to be safe and feasible as well. Further randomized controlled studies are required to better evaluate the advantages of robotic fundoplication.