Gastric cancer is ranked as the fifth most frequently diagnosed type of cancer. Complete resection with adequate lymphadenectomy represents the goal of treatment with curative intent. Quality assurance is a crucial factor in the evaluation of oncological surgical care, and centralization of healthcare in referral hospitals has been proposed in several countries. However, an international agreement about the setting of “high-volume hospitals” as well as “minimum volume standards” has not yet been clearly established. Despite the clear postoperative mortality benefits that have been described for gastric cancer surgery conducted by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals, many authors have highlighted the limitations of a non-composite variable to define the ideal postoperative period. The textbook outcome represents a multidimensional measure assessing the quality of care for cancer patients. Transparent and easily available hospital data will increase patients’ awareness, providing suitable elements for a more informed hospital choice.

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.