Robotic surgery, as an increasingly widespread application in the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer, still faces obvious discrepancies in recommendations, indications, and evidence strength across existing guidelines. This study systematically analyzed 31 relevant guidelines and consensus statements (retrieved from Chinese and English databases from January 2010 to May 2025) from two dimensions: feasibility (effectiveness, safety, etc.) and training quality control.The results showed that colorectal cancer guidelines had a higher proportion (4 guidelines) of "clear recommendations" for robotic surgery, while gastric cancer guidelines predominantly presented "conditional recommendations" or no recommendations. In the training and quality control dimension, although structured suggestions received positive recommendations, more than half were based on low or very low-quality evidence. Evidence mapping indicated insufficient matching between "case-specific recommendations" and evidence grades in the feasibility dimension, while training processes emphasized the importance of standardized systems and team collaboration.The study highlights the existing heterogeneity in evidence-based guidelines for robotic gastrointestinal surgery, with colorectal cancer demonstrating a more mature evidence base and gastric cancer showing notable evidence gaps. It is recommended that future guideline development should strengthen the consistency between recommendation grades and evidence levels, promote high-quality research in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and improve surgeon training and certification systems to facilitate standardized clinical translation of robotic gastrointestinal surgery.

Robotic surgery, as an increasingly widespread application in the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer, still faces obvious discrepancies in recommendations, indications, and evidence strength across existing guidelines. This study systematically analyzed 31 relevant guidelines and consensus statements (retrieved from Chinese and English databases from January 2010 to May 2025) from two dimensions: feasibility (effectiveness, safety, etc.) and training quality control.The results showed that colorectal cancer guidelines had a higher proportion (4 guidelines) of "clear recommendations" for robotic surgery, while gastric cancer guidelines predominantly presented "conditional recommendations" or no recommendations. In the training and quality control dimension, although structured suggestions received positive recommendations, more than half were based on low or very low-quality evidence. Evidence mapping indicated insufficient matching between "case-specific recommendations" and evidence grades in the feasibility dimension, while training processes emphasized the importance of standardized systems and team collaboration.The study highlights the existing heterogeneity in evidence-based guidelines for robotic gastrointestinal surgery, with colorectal cancer demonstrating a more mature evidence base and gastric cancer showing notable evidence gaps. It is recommended that future guideline development should strengthen the consistency between recommendation grades and evidence levels, promote high-quality research in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and improve surgeon training and certification systems to facilitate standardized clinical translation of robotic gastrointestinal surgery.

Background/Aims: According to the Chicago classification version 3.0, high-resolution manometry (HRM) should be performed in the supine position. However, with the patient in the upright/sitting position, the test could more closely simulate real-life behavior and may be better tolerated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to search whether the manometric variables and the final diagnosis are affected by positional changes. Methods: A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English that compared HRM results in different body positions were included. Moreover, the change in diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders according to the shift of body position was investigated. Results: Seventeen studies including 1714 patients and healthy volunteers met the inclusion criteria. Six studies showed a significant increase in lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure in the supine position. Integrated relaxation pressure was significantly higher in the supine position in 10 of 13 studies. Distal contractile index was higher in the supine position in 9 out of 10 studies. One hundred and fifty-one patients (16.4%) out of 922 with normal HRM in the supine position were diagnosed with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) when the test was performed in the upright position (P < 0.001). Conclusions Performing HRM in the upright position affects some variables and may change the final manometric diagnosis. Further studies to determine the normal values in the sitting position are needed.