Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000–2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have changed perioperative care, aiming to optimize patient outcomes. This study assesses ERAS implementation effects on postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. A retrospective real-world analysis was conducted on CRC patients undergoing surgery within a Northern Italian Cancer Registry. Outcomes including complications, re-surgeries, 30-day readmission, mortality, and LOS were assessed in 2023, the year of ERAS protocol adoption, and compared with data from 2022. A total of 158 surgeries were performed, 77 cases in 2022 and 81 in 2023. In 2023, a lower incidence of postoperative complications was observed compared to that in 2022 (17.3% vs. 22.1%), despite treating a higher proportion of patients with unfavorable prognoses. However, rates of reoperations and readmissions within 30 days post-surgery increased in 2023. Mortality within 30 days remained consistent between the two groups. Patients diagnosed in 2023 experienced a statistically significant reduction in LOS compared to those in 2022 (mean: 5 vs. 8.1 days). ERAS protocols in CRC surgery yield reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, even in complex cases. Our study emphasizes ERAS’ role in enhancing surgical outcomes and recovery.

Background and Objectives: Surgery remains the only possible curative treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Peritoneal metastases are estimated to occur in approximately 55–60% AGC patients. Greater omentum is the most common metastatic area in AGC. At present, omentectomy alone or bursectomy are usually carried out during gastric cancer surgery. We performed a meta-analysis in order to evaluate long-term and short-term outcomes among AGC patients, who have undergone radical gastrectomy with or without complete omentectomy (CO). Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4. Results: The eight included studies covered an approximately 20 years long study period (2000–2018). Almost all included studies were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries. Meta-analysis indicated gastrectomy without CO as significantly associated with longer 3-year (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90–0.98, p = 0.005) and 5-year overall survivals (OS) (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88–0.98, p = 0.007). Moreover, we found longer operative time (MD: 24.00, 95% CI: −0.45–48.45, p = 0.05) and higher estimated blood loss (MD: 194.76, 95% CI: 96.40–293.13, p = 0.0001) in CO group. Conclusions: Non-complete omentectomy (NCO) group had a statistically greater rate in 3-year and 5-year OSs than the CO group, while the CO group had significantly longer operative time and higher estimated blood loss than the NCO group. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may turn out of paramount importance in confirming our results.

Background and Objectives: Anterior rectal resection (ARR) represents one of the most frequently performed methods in colorectal surgery, mainly carried out for rectal cancer (RC) treatment. Defunctioning ileostomy (DI) has long been chosen as a method to “protect” colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after ARR. However, DI does not rule out risks of more or less serious complications. A proximal intra-abdominal closed-loop ileostomy, the so-called virtual/ghost ileostomy (VI/GI), could limit the number of DIs and the associated morbidity. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan [Computer program] Version 5.4. Results: The five included comparative studies (VI/GI or DI) covering an approximately 20-year study period (2008–2021). All included studies were observational ones and originated from European countries. Meta-analysis indicated VI/GI as significantly associated with lower short-term morbidity rates related to VI/GI or DI after primary surgery (RR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07–0.64, p = 0.006), fewer dehydration (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04–0.75, p = 0.02) and ileus episodes after primary surgery (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.77, p = 0.02), fewer readmissions after primary surgery (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07–0.43, p = 0.0002) and readmissions after primary surgery plus stoma closure surgery (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06–0.30, p < 0.00001) than the DI group. On the contrary, no differences were identified in terms of AL after primary surgery, short-term morbidity after primary surgery, major complications (CD ≥ III) after primary surgery and length of hospital stay after primary surgery. Conclusions: Given the significant biases among meta-analyzed studies (small overall sample size and the small number of events analyzed, in particular), our results require careful interpretation. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may be of paramount importance in confirming our results.

Background and Objectives: Post-Operative Pancreatic Fistula (POPF) is reported among 13% to 64% of cases following a distal/left pancreatectomy (D/LP). Many efforts aim to prevent the onset of POPF or reduce its clinical impact. This meta-analysis sought to provide data by assessing POPF rates among patients undergoing D/LP for benign or malignant pancreatic diseases, with or without pancreatic stump mesh wrapping. Materials and Methods: We undertook a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, alongside the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We evaluated the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following key outcomes: overall POPF and clinically relevant POPF. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were employed to retrieve relevant papers. Pooled analysis was carried out employing RevMan Version 5.4.1. Results: Among the 8 comparative studies considered (1042 subjects: 430 Wrapping Mesh Group (WMG) versus 612 control group (CG)), seven were retrospective observational studies and one was a randomized controlled trial. Polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh was used in 7 studies, except for one, who used a polyglactin mesh. Regarding the primary outcomes, meta-analysis showed lower rates of Overall POPF (Ov-POPF) (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.88; p = 0.01) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.50; p < 0.00001) in the WMG. Moreover, the WMG also showed a decrease in Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) (MD: −43.11, 95%, CI: −63.20, −23.02, p < 0.0001), a shorter period with surgical drain (MD: −9.66, 95% CI: −17.99, −1.34, p = 0.02) and a decreased length of hospital stay (MD: −4.60, 95%, CI: −7.83, −1.36, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that wrapping the pancreatic stump with mesh is associated with lower rates of overall POPF and clinically relevant POPF, lower EBL, a shorter period with the surgical drain and reduced hospital stay duration. There is a need for high-quality methodological research to identify the risk factors for the onset of POPF and to evaluate and compare the results of various surgical approaches used to reduce its rate and associated morbidity.

Background and Objectives: Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is an emergent condition managed by surgical intervention. No conclusive evidence has been produced regarding the need for drain placement after primary repair. Our meta-analysis aimed to provide insight into the short-term outcomes by comparing the two strategies of drain omission or intra-operative placement of at least one drain. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were utilized to identify articles of interest. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Version 5.4. Eligible studies were comparative studies (RCTs and observational studies) enrolling adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing emergency primary repair for PPU, with or without prophylactic intra-abdominal drain placement; case reports and series of fewer than 10 patients were excluded. The literature search covered January 2010 to 22 February 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I V2 tool for observational studies; certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random-effects model and expressed as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); statistical heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. Results: Five studies were considered for comparison, for a total of 1354 patients (744 and 610 in the drain and no-drain groups, respectively). Three were randomized controlled trials, and two were retrospective cohort studies, conducted across four countries (India, the USA, Egypt, and Japan). Meta-analysis of the pooled results showed that drain omission was associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS) (MD −2.13, 95% CI [−3.91–−0.35], p < 0.0001) and a lower rate of superficial surgical site infections (SSIs) (16.7% vs. 52.7%, OR 0.24, 95%CI [0.11–0.55], p = 0.0007). No difference was observed regarding the rate of leaks, reoperation, or deep SSIs. Low-certainty evidence suggested higher postoperative mortality in the no-drain group (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.48; p = 0.02; I² = 0%), largely driven by retrospective studies with a high risk of bias. This mortality finding is of very low certainty and is most likely attributable to confounding in the observational studies rather than a true causal effect of drain omission. Several outcomes were based on data from only two to three studies, and the overall certainty of evidence was low to very low. Conclusions: Drain omission after primary repair for PPU may be associated with better outcomes in terms of LOS and superficial SSIs, primarily in lower-acuity patients, as reflected by the inclusion criteria of the contributing RCTs. Pooled analysis showed a higher postoperative mortality in the no-drain group; however, given the significant biases among included studies, our results should be interpreted as non-causal and thus require careful interpretation. Further research encompassing the full clinical spectrum of PPU is needed to confirm our results. Evidence certainty was low to very low across all outcomes, primarily due to a risk of bias, high heterogeneity (I² up to 95% for LOS), indirectness, and imprecision.