Introduction: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgical resection, the primary treatment, often induces immunosuppression and increases the risk of postoperative complications. Perioperative immunonutrition (IMN), comprising formulations enriched with omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, nucleotides, and antioxidants, has emerged as a potential strategy to improve surgical outcomes by reducing complications, enhancing immune function, and promoting recovery. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on 28 October 2024 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating perioperative IMN versus standard care in adult patients undergoing GI cancer surgery were included in the search. The outcomes assessed included infectious and non-infectious complications, wound healing, hospital stay, and nutritional status. The study quality was evaluated using AMSTAR 2, and the meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to calculate the pooled effect sizes (risk ratios [RRs], odds ratios [ORs], mean differences [MDs]) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Sixteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including a total of 41,072 patients, were included. IMN significantly reduced infectious complications (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55–0.70; I² = 63.0%), including urinary tract infections (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.89; I² = 0.0%) and wound infections (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55–0.73; I² = 34.4%). Anastomotic leak rates were notably lower (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.62–0.75; I² = 8.2%). While no significant reduction in pneumonia risk was observed, non-infectious complications decreased significantly (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75–0.92; I² = 30.6%). IMN also reduced the length of hospital stay by an average of 1.92 days (MD: −1.92, 95% CI: −2.36 to −1.48; I² = 73.5%). Conclusions: IMN provides significant benefits in GI cancer surgery, reducing complications and improving recovery. However, variability in protocols and populations highlight the need for standardization and further high-quality trials to optimize its application and to validate its efficacy in enhancing surgical care.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been standard of care for surgical treatment of benign gallbladder pathology for decades. With the advent of robotic surgical technology, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has gained attention as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy. This study introduces a single-surgeon experience with laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy and an umbrella systematic review of the outcomes of both approaches. A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder pathology. An umbrella systematic review was conducted using PRISMA methodology. A total of 103 patients were identified; 61 patients underwent LC and 42 underwent RC. In the RC cohort, 17 cases were completed using a four-port technique while 25 were completed using a three-port technique. Patients undergoing RC were older compared to the LC group (44.78 vs 57.02 years old; p < 0.001) and exhibited lower body mass index (29.37 vs 32.37 kg/m², p = 0.040). No statistically significant difference in operative time or need for postoperative ERCP was noted. Neither this series nor the umbrella systematic review revealed significant differences in conversion to open surgery or readmissions between the LC and RC cohorts. Three-port RC was associated with reduced operative time compared to four-port RC (101.28 vs 150.76 min; p < 0.001). Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe at a young robotic surgery program in an academic center setting and comparable to laparoscopic cholecystectomy clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Obesity is a chronic disease associated with increased risk for several cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC), a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. The majority of CRC cases are associated with modifiable risk factors. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a proven, durable, and successful intervention for obesity. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of MBS on CRC risk through measures of association, such as relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR). Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Embase was conducted to identify systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses examining the relationship between obesity treated with MBS and CRC incidence. The PICO framework guided inclusion criteria, and three independent reviewers screened articles using Rayyan software. Quality assessment was performed using AMSTAR2. Results: Of 1336 screened articles, 10 SR met inclusion criteria, encompassing 53,452,658 patients. Meta-analyses consistently showed a significant reduction in CRC risk following MBS in patients with severe obesity. Risk reductions were reported by Liu et al. (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.32–0.67, p < 0.01), Chierici et al. (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.75, p = 0.018), Wilson et al. (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.88, p = 0.003), and Pararas et al. (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40–0.80, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. For colon cancer, Liu and Chierici both reported an RR of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.46–1.21, p = 0.2444) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 89%). A trend towards reduced rectal cancer risk (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40–1.39, p = 0.3523) was noted but limited by fewer studies. Sex-specific analyses revealed protective effects in both sexes, with a more pronounced impact in females (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.79, p = 0.0014). Conclusions: This umbrella review synthesizes current evidence on the impact of MBS on CRC risk, highlighting a consistent protective association. The findings also indicate a potential risk reduction for both colon and rectal cancer, with a more pronounced effect observed among females compared to males. Given the profound implications of MBS on cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality, further high-quality, long-term studies are essential to deepen our understanding and optimize its role in cancer prevention and patient care.