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.

Background: Esophageal achalasia increasingly affects elderly patients, in whom frailty and comorbidity complicate management and heighten procedural risk. Minimally invasive Heller–Dor myotomy remains the reference surgical treatment, while the advent of robotics has renewed interest in its potential advantages. Whether these refinements translate into meaningful benefits for older adults remains unclear. This gap is clinically significant given the distinct physiological vulnerabilities of older adults. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted to examine current evidence on robotic Heller–Dor myotomy for achalasia, with specific focus on its applicability in elderly and frail patients. Comparative studies between robotic and laparoscopic approaches were analyzed and integrated with available data on achalasia management in older individuals. Results: Robotic Heller–Dor myotomy demonstrates equivalent efficacy to laparoscopic surgery, with reduced mucosal perforation rates, improved ergonomics, and comparable operative times once the learning curve is achieved. However, no published series has specifically analyzed outcomes in geriatric cohorts. Available evidence from laparoscopic studies confirms that surgery remains safe and effective in geriatric patients, suggesting that the precision of robotics could potentially further enhance safety and recovery in this subgroup. Conclusions: Robotic Heller–Dor myotomy represents a promising evolution of minimally invasive therapy for achalasia, potentially aligning technological refinements with the physiological needs of older adults. Prospective studies incorporating frailty assessment, patient-centered outcomes, and cost analyses are required to determine its true value and guide evidence-based use in the aging population.