Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery has undergone significant advances over the past few decades, driven by the evolution of minimally invasive techniques, particularly laparoscopy and robotics. While laparoscopy is widely recognized for its short-term benefits and oncological safety, the increasing adoption of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has generated considerable debate regarding its clinical benefits, economic implications, and overall impact on patient outcomes. This narrative review synthesizes the existing evidence, highlighting the clinical and economic aspects of RAS in colorectal surgery, while exploring areas for future research. The findings suggest that RAS offers potential technical advantages, including increased precision, three-dimensional visualization, and improved ergonomics, particularly in anatomically complex scenarios such as low rectal resections. Still, its superiority over laparoscopy remains inconclusive and current evidence is mixed. For colon cancer, meta-analyses and analyses of large cohorts suggest lower conversion rates and faster recovery with RAS, although data are mostly retrospective and lack long-term oncological endpoints. In rectal cancer, emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates improved short-term outcomes. Additionally, the recently published three-year results of the REAL trial are the first to demonstrate enhanced oncological outcomes following RAS. However, findings remain inconsistent due to methodological heterogeneity, the absence of patient stratification, and limited data on long-term survival and cost-effectiveness. The available evidence indicates that RAS may offer advantages in selected patient populations, particularly for anatomically complex procedures. Yet, its overall utility remains uncertain. Future studies should emphasize high-quality randomized trials, stratified subgroup analyses, and standardized economic evaluations to better define the role of RAS in colorectal surgery.