Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2025
Surgical Robot-Assisted Transanal Specimen Extraction Radical Sigmoidectomy Without an Auxiliary Abdominal Incision
Published on: June 13, 2025
The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review
Naila H Dhanani1, Oscar A Olavarria1, Karla Bernardi1
1McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas (N.H.D., O.A.O., K.B., N.B.L., J.L.H.).
Background:
Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.
Purpose:
To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.
Data Sources:
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.
Study Selection:
Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.
Data Extraction:
Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.
Data Synthesis:
A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.
Limitations:
Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.
Conclusion:
There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.
Primary Funding Source:
None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).
