Robotic-Assisted Tubal Reanastomosis After Sterilization in the IVF Era: A Narrative Review

Background and Objectives: Robotic-assisted tubal reanastomosis (RATR) remains a clinically relevant option for selected women seeking fertility after sterilization. In the era of IVF, surgical reversal continues to be discussed because it may restore the possibility of spontaneous conception rather than offering only cycle-dependent treatment. However, the available evidence on RATR is heterogeneous and derives predominantly from observational studies. The aim of this narrative review with a structured literature search was to synthesize the published evidence on the operative, reproductive, and economic outcomes of RATR and to contextualize its role in contemporary fertility counseling. Materials and Methods: A structured literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed from database inception to 20 December 2025. Data were synthesized descriptively without meta-analysis. Primary robotic clinical studies were interpreted separately from secondary and contextual publications. Results: In total, 16 studies were included in our study. The evidence base comprised predominantly retrospective cohorts and case series; no randomized controlled trials were identified. Reported tubal patency endpoints in robotic cohorts ranged from 81.0% to 94.1%, although denominators differed across studies and were reported either per patient or per tube. Reported pregnancy outcomes ranged from 25% to 80%, reflecting substantial heterogeneity in patient selection, follow-up duration, and outcome definitions. When woman-level delivery or live-birth outcomes were explicitly reported, they were generally encouraging in selected series, although not uniformly defined. Estimated blood loss was usually minimal when reported, and conversion to laparotomy was uncommon. Any comparison with IVF was indirect because no contemporary head-to-head comparative studies were identified. Economic data were sparse, institution-specific, and methodologically heterogeneous. Conclusions: Available observational evidence suggests that RATR is a feasible minimally invasive option for fertility restoration in carefully selected women after sterilization. However, the evidence base remains limited by retrospective design, small cohorts, heterogeneous outcome reporting, variable follow-up, and indirect comparison with IVF. RATR should be considered within individualized fertility counseling rather than as a universal alternative to IVF. Prospective comparative studies with standardized outcome definitions, transparent reporting of prognostic factors, and robust economic evaluation are needed.