Minimally invasive Heller myotomy is considered the gold standard surgical approach for symptomatic achalasia because it is a safe and effective procedure. Over the last years, several studies comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approach for Heller myotomy have been published. Although the robotic approach appears to have some advantages over standard laparoscopy, data on this topic are still controversial and no definite conclusions have been drawn. This metanalysis has been designed to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of the robot-assisted Heller myotomy as compared to the standard laparoscopic approach. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search on both laparoscopic and robotic Heller myotomy was performed in all the major electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search string: (achalasia OR Dor) AND robotic. Six articles were included in the final analysis. A metaregression analysis was performed to assess the possible effects of demographic variables (age, gender, body mass indes (BMI)) and previous abdominal surgery or endoscopic intervention on the analyzed outcomes. No statistical difference was observed in operative times (mean difference (MD) = 20.79, P = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.05,51,62), estimated blood loss (MD = −17.10, P = 0.13, 95% CI −40.48,5.08), conversion rate to open surgery (risk difference (RD) = −0.01, P = 0.33, 95% CI −0.05,0.02), length of hospital stay (MD = −0.73, P = 0.15, 95% CI −1.71,0.25) and long-term recurrence (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, P = 0.45, 95% CI 0.15,2.33). On the contrary, the robotic approach was found to be associated with a significantly significant lower rate of intraoperative esophageal perforations (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.04, 0.45). Our results suggest that the robotic approach is safer than the laparoscopic Heller myotomy, encouraging the use of robot-assisted surgery. However, our analysis is limited because of the exiguous number of comparative studies and because most of the included studies were statistically underpowered, given the small sample size. Moreover, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in most of published studies. Taking in consideration the additional costs of robot-assisted procedures, larger Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are advocated to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the robotic approach, and its advantages over standard laparoscopic surgery. In conclusion, well-designed prospective trials and RCTs with homogeneous parameters are needed to draw definitive conclusions about the best surgical approach to pursue in treating symptomatic achalasia.

In the new era of minimally invasive surgery, recent studies encouraged the adoption of endoscopic approaches as the most effective way to treat (pilonidal sinus disease) PSD but little is known about long-term results of minimally invasive procedures. A total of 145 patients with chronic non recurrent pilonidal sinus were enrolled for this randomized controlled trial. The follow-up rate was 97% at 5 years for a total of 74 patients assigned to the minimally invasive treatment group and 67 patients assigned to the conventional Bascom cleft lift treatment group. We evaluated the following outcomes: long-term recurrence rate, patients' satisfaction, cosmetic outcome and cost-effectiveness results. Long-term data confirm that the recurrence rate was similar in both groups and, in minimally invasive patients, there were a higher satisfaction and better cosmetic results. Costs analysis revealed improved outcome in favour of VAAPS with a much lower mean global cost. Minimally invasive treatment has all the characteristics of an ideal approach to PSD with advantages including minimal patient inconveniences, high satisfaction and good aesthetics results. It was also more cost effective to carry out the treatment.

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

The management of chronic pilonidal disease remains controversial, but recently, new minimal invasive approaches have been proposed. Whereas in the conventional surgical treatment an elliptical wedge of skin and subcutaneous tissue is created to remove the sinus and its lateral tracks, the basis for our new treatment is to create a minimal elliptical wedge of the subcutaneous tissue, including all the inflamed tissue and debris while leaving the overlying skin intact. The mechanism of an endoscopic approach relies on use of the endoscope without cutaneous tissue damage. Advantages include shorter operative time and time to discharge, which impact resource management in both primary and secondary care: patients undergoing endoscopic technique have a high satisfaction rate, probably due to the low level of postoperative pain and early return to work and daily activities. However, it is mandatory that further studies would analyze surgical approaches to pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) with a consistent and adequate follow-up of at least 5 years. Both sinusectomy and endoscopic approach to PSD were found to be safe and effective compared with conventional techniques. Publishedresults of studies of newer approaches have demonstrated a low short-term complication rate, comparable to conventional surgery results.

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.