Background: Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. Methods: This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. Results: Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. Conclusions: Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of gallbladder lithiasis; nevertheless, the incidence of bile duct injuries (BDI) is still high (0.3–0.8%) compared to open cholecystectomy (0.2%). In 1995, Strasberg introduced the "Critical View of Safety" (CVS) to reduce the risk of BDI. Despite its widespread use, the scientific evidence supporting this technique to prevent BDI is controversial. Methods: Between March 2017 and March 2019, the data of patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 30 Italian surgical departments were collected on a national database. A survey was submitted to all members of Italian Digestive Pathology Society to obtain data on the preoperative workup, the surgical and postoperative management of patients and to judge, at the end of the procedure, if the isolation of the elements was performed according to the CVS. In the case of a declared critical view, iconographic documentation was obtained, finally reviewed by an external auditor. Results: Data from 604 patients were analysed. The study population was divided into two groups according to the evidence (Group A; n = 11) or absence (Group B; N = 593) of BDI and perioperative bleeding. The non-use of CVS was found in 54.6% of procedures in the Group A, and 25.8% in the Group B, and evaluating the operator-related variables the execution of CVS was associated with a significantly lower incidence of BDI and intraoperative bleeding. Conclusions: The CVS confirmed to be the safest technique to recognize the elements of the Calot triangle and, if correctly performed, it significantly impacted on preventing intraoperative complications. Additional educational programs on the correct application of CVS in clinical practice would be desirable to avoid extreme conditions that may require additional procedures.

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are most frequently located in the stomach. In the setting of a multidisciplinary approach, surgery represents the best therapeutic option, consisting mainly in a wedge gastric resection. (1) Materials and methods: Between January 2010 to September 2020, 105 patients with a primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GISTs) located in the stomach, underwent surgery at three surgical units. (2) Results: A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive series including 81 cases (36 laparoscopic and 45 robotic) from 3 referral centers was performed. Males were 35 (43.2%), the average age was 66.64 years old. ASA score ≥3 was 6 (13.3%) in the RS and 4 (11.1%) in the LS and the average tumor size was 4.4 cm. Most of the procedures were wedge resections (N = 76; 93.8%) and the main operative time was 151 min in the RS and 97 min in the LS. Conversion was necessary in five cases (6.2%). (3) Conclusions: Minimal invasive approaches for gastric GISTs performed in selected patients and experienced centers are safe. A robotic approach represents a useful option, especially for GISTs that are more than 5 cm, even located in unfavorable places.

Background: Robotics has been proposed as a tool to improve laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. However, a clear benefit of this technology for minimally invasive antireflux surgery has not been demonstrated. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective database was used to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcome of 137 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic fundoplication (CLF) and 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic robot-assisted fundoplication (LRF). Intraoperative outcome measures were: operative time, blood loss and complications. Length of hospital stay, functional results and patient satisfaction were used to compare postoperative outcome. Results: Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRF group (65 min) compared to the CLF group (85 min) (p < 0.0001). The overall complication rate was comparable between the two techniques, even though a higher incidence of liver tears was encountered in the CLF group (p < 0.05). Hospital stay, symptom relief and patient satisfaction did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Robotics improves surgeon dexterity and maneuverability during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, but this does not correspond to a better postoperative outcome. LRF should be used only for complex cases and training.