Background: The aim of this retrospective comparative study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 and delayed emergency department access on emergency surgery outcomes, by comparing the main clinical outcomes in the period March–May 2019 (group 1) with the same period during the national COVID-19 lockdown in Italy (March–May 2020, group 2). Methods: A comparison (groups 1 versus 2) and subgroup analysis were performed between patients’ demographic, medical history, surgical, clinical and management characteristics. Results: Two-hundred forty-six patients were included, 137 in group 1 and 109 in group 2 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in the peri-operative characteristics of the two groups. A declared delay in access to hospital and preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 15.5% and 5.8%, respectively in group 2. The overall morbidity (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.08–4.55, p = 0.03) and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.33–5.50, =0.68) were significantly higher in group 2. The delayed access cohort showed a close correlation with increased morbidity (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 0.89–11.44, p = 0.07), blood transfusion (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.05–25.15, p = 0.04) and 30-day mortality risk (OR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.01–63.23, p = 0.05). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher risk of blood transfusion (20% vs 7.8%, p = 0.37) and ICU admissions (20% vs 2.6%, p = 0.17) and a longer median LOS (9 days vs 4 days, p = 0.11). Conclusions: This article provides enhanced understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient access to emergency surgical care. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 changed the quality of surgical care with poorer prognosis and higher morbidity rates. Delayed emergency department access and a “filter effect” induced by a fear of COVID-19 infection in the population resulted in only the most severe cases reaching the emergency department in time.

Aging is a multifactorial biological process characterized by a decline in physiological function and increasing susceptibility to various diseases, including malignancies and gastrointestinal disorders. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is highly prevalent among older adults, particularly those in institutionalized settings, contributing to conditions such as atrophic gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, and gastric carcinoma. This review examines the intricate interplay between aging, gastrointestinal changes, and H. pylori pathogenesis. The age-associated decline in immune function, known as immunosenescence, exacerbates the challenges of managing H. pylori infection. Comorbidities and polypharmacy further increase the risk of adverse outcomes in older adults. Current clinical guidelines inadequately address the specific needs of the geriatric population, who are disproportionately affected by antibiotic resistance, heightened side effects, and diagnostic complexities. This review focuses on recent advancements in understanding H. pylori infection among older adults, including epidemiology, diagnostics, therapeutic strategies, and age-related gastric changes. Diagnostic approaches must consider the physiological changes that accompany aging, and treatment regimens need to be carefully tailored to balance efficacy and tolerability. Emerging strategies, such as novel eradication regimens and adjunctive probiotic therapies, show promise for improving treatment outcomes. However, significant knowledge gaps persist regarding the impact of aging on H. pylori pathogenesis and treatment efficacy. A multidisciplinary approach involving gastroenterologists, geriatricians, and other specialists is crucial to providing comprehensive care for this vulnerable population. Future research should focus on refining diagnostic and therapeutic protocols to bridge these gaps, ultimately enhancing clinical outcomes and reducing the burden of H. pylori-associated diseases in the aging population.

Background: Esophageal cancer, the seventh most common malignancy globally, requires esophagectomy for curative treatment. However, esophagectomy is associated with high postoperative morbidity and mortality, highlighting the need for minimally invasive approaches. Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), offering potential benefits in improving clinical and oncological outcomes. This review aims to assess the postoperative morbidity and outcomes of robotic surgery. Methods: A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted, focusing on studies evaluating the role of robotic-assisted surgery in esophagectomy. Data were synthesized on the clinical outcomes, including postoperative complications, survival rates, and recovery time, as well as technological advancements in robotic surgery platforms. Studies comparing robotic-assisted esophagectomy with traditional approaches were analyzed to determine the potential advantages of robotic systems in improving surgical precision and patient outcomes. Results: Robotic-assisted esophagectomy (RAMIE) has shown significant improvements in clinical outcomes compared to open surgery and MIE, including reduced postoperative pain, less blood loss, and faster recovery. RAMIE offers enhanced thoracic access, with fewer complications than thoracotomy. The RACE technique has improved patient recovery and reduced morbidity. Fluorescence-guided technologies, including near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF), have proven valuable for sentinel node biopsy, lymphatic mapping, and angiography, helping identify critical structures and minimizing complications like anastomotic leakage and chylothorax. Despite these benefits, challenges such as the high cost of robotic systems and limited long-term data hinder broader adoption. Hybrid approaches, combining robotic and open techniques, remain common in clinical practice. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted esophagectomy offers promising advantages, including enhanced precision, reduced complications, and faster recovery, but challenges related to cost, accessibility, and evidence gaps must be addressed. The hybrid approach remains a valuable option in select clinical scenarios. Continued research, including large-scale randomized controlled trials, is necessary to further establish the role of robotic surgery as the standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer.

Introduction: Robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) represents a significant advancement in the surgical management of gastric cancer, offering superior dexterity, enhanced visualization, and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). This review systematically evaluates the current evidence on perioperative outcomes, oncological efficacy, learning curves, and economic considerations, providing insights into RAMIG’s potential role in modern gastric cancer surgery. Methods: A thorough analysis of retrospective, prospective, and meta-analytic studies was conducted to compare RAMIG with LG. Key outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph node retrieval, postoperative complications, learning curve duration, and cost-effectiveness, were assessed. Emphasis was placed on both short-term and long-term oncological outcomes to determine the clinical value of RAMIG. Results: Evidence indicates that RAMIG is associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity rates, and a shorter learning curve, with proficiency achieved after 11–25 cases compared to 40–60 cases for LG. The robotic platform’s articulated instruments and enhanced three-dimensional visualization enable more precise lymphadenectomy, particularly in complex anatomical regions. Despite these advantages, operative time remains longer, and costs remain higher due to system acquisition, maintenance, and consumable expenses. However, emerging data suggest a gradual narrowing of cost disparities. While short-term outcomes are favorable, further high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to validate long-term oncological efficacy and survival outcomes. Conclusion: RAMIG offers significant technical and clinical advantages over conventional LG, particularly in terms of precision and learning efficiency. However, the long-term oncological benefits and economic feasibility require further validation. Future research should focus on cost optimization, advanced technological integration such as near-infrared fluorescence and artificial intelligence, and multicenter trials to solidify RAMIG’s role as a standard approach for gastric cancer surgery.

Within the intricate field of rectal cancer surgery, the contentious debate over the optimal level of ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) persists as an ongoing discussion, influencing surgical approaches and patient outcomes. This narrative review incorporates historical perspectives, technical considerations, and functional as well as oncological outcomes, addressing key questions related to anastomotic leakage risks, genitourinary function, and oncological concerns, providing a more critical understanding of the well-known inconclusive evidence. Beyond the dichotomy of high versus low tie, it navigates the complexities of colorectal cancer surgery with a fresh perspective, posing a transformative question: “Is low tie ligation truly reproducible?” Considering a multidimensional approach that enhances patient outcomes by integrating the surgeon, patient, technique, and technology, instead of a rigid and categorical statement, we argued that a balanced response to this challenging question may require compromise.

Objective: to evaluate the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), risk factors and utility of drainage and stoma in patients undergoing intestinal surgery for ovarian cancer in a single institution and in a review of the literature. Methods: retrospective study that includes consecutive patients undergoing debulking surgery with en bloc pelvic resection with rectosigmoid colectomy for ovarian cancer between 1 November 2011 and 31 December 2021. Data regarding patient and tumour characteristics, surgical procedure, hospitalisation, complications and follow-up were recorded and analysed. The PubMed database was explored for recent publications on this topic. Results: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the study. All anastomoses were performed at a distance of >6 cm from the anal margin, with negative leak tests and tension-free anastomosis. Diverting stoma were performed in just three patients (4%). At least one perianastomotic pelvic drain was positioned in 71 patients (94.7%) and was removed on average on postoperative day 7. Four patients (5.3%) experienced AL. In all cases, the drain content was not the only sign of complication, as the clinical signs were also highly suggestive. Just one patient received conservative treatment. Average postoperative hospitalisation was 14.6 days (SD: ±9.7). There were no deaths at 30 and 60 days after surgery. Between the AL and non-AL groups, statistically significant differences were observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, length of the intestinal resection and fitness for chemotherapy at 30 days. In ovarian cancer, rectosigmoid resection is a standardised procedure with comparable results for AL, and risk factors for AL are discretely homogeneous. What is neither homogeneous nor standardised according to the literature is the use of stomas and/or drains. Conclusion: use in the future of protective stoma and/or intra-abdominal drains is to be explored in selected and standardised situations to verify their preventive role.