Rethinking health technology assessment in robotic surgery: an EFISDS-TROGSS position paper. Official position paper of the European Federation - International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) and The Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS).

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has evolved from a procedural innovation into an increasingly integrated component of contemporary digital surgical ecosystems. Nevertheless, most current Health Technology Assessment (HTA) frameworks continue to evaluate robotic systems primarily through comparator-based models focused on isolated perioperative and oncological outcomes. In this EFISDS-TROGSS position paper, we critically examine the methodological limitations of conventional HTA paradigms when applied to robotic surgical platforms, using the recent Italian AGENAS appraisal as a representative case study. While the AGENAS document represents one of the most comprehensive national evaluations of RAS performed to date, its heterogeneous recommendations across procedures highlight unresolved tensions regarding perioperative benefit, real-world implementation, learning curves, organizational impact, and long-term healthcare value. We argue that RAS should increasingly be interpreted not simply as a surgical device, but as a platform technology interacting with simulation-based training, digital infrastructure, surgical data science, artificial intelligence, telecommunication systems, and institutional organization. Rather than a surgical device alone, RAS should be interpreted and regarded as a combination of technological advances and approaches that integrate various degrees of artificial intelligence autonomy, image navigation, telesurgery, and other benefits to empower the surgical team. Conventional HTA models, originally developed for relatively discrete therapeutic interventions, may incompletely capture the multidimensional interaction between robotic technologies and modern healthcare systems. Particular attention is dedicated to real-world evidence, implementation maturity, reimbursement limitations, and the growing mismatch between current Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) structures and technologically integrated surgical care. Finally, we propose more flexible and multidimensional assessment frameworks integrating procedural outcomes with organizational sustainability, digital interoperability, workforce implications, and longitudinal healthcare value.