SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Surg.
Sec. Colorectal and Proctological Surgery
This article is part of the Research TopicEvaluating surgical techniques and perioperative strategies in colorectal cancer treatmentView all 15 articles
Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopy for Resection of Colorectal Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Provisionally accepted
Alaa R. Al-Ihribat1*
Ibrahim Moqbel2
Ahmed Oun3Ahmed Mahmoud Ahmed Mekky4Mohamed Youssef Abdou Youssef5Mohamed fawzy Abdelkader Youssef6
Hamza Khelifa7Fatima Mohammed Elawad Sanhour8Ashraf Abdelmonem Elsayed5- 1Palestine Polytechnic University, Hebron, Palestine
- 2Cairo University Learning Resource Center, Cairo, Egypt
- 3Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
- 4Aswan University, Sahary City, Egypt
- 5Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
- 6Alexandria University Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt
- 7Universite Oran 1 Ahmed Ben Bella, Oran, Algeria
- 8University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract: Background: Colorectal cancer is a major global health concern that requires successful surgical treatments. While robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) provides prospective improvements, laparoscopic surgery has proven to yield better results than open surgeries. Methods: from 2018 to December 2024, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies comparing RAS and conventional laparoscopic surgery were included. The primary outcomes assessed were length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operating time. Using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, statistical analysis was performed, including subgroup analyses by anatomical site (colon, rectum, colorectal). Sensitivity analyses and heterogeneity were conducted. Results: 21 studies involving over 70,000 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated significantly longer operative times with RAS (MD = 0.161-1.049, p<0.001). RAS was linked to a significantly lower chance of re-operative rates (RR=0.549, p=0.023) and a significantly lower risk of conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.412-0.592, p<0.001). RAS decreased problems in the colorectal group (RR=0.867, p=0.023), but overall rectum group complication rates were comparable. Hospital stays were shorter after conventional surgery (MD = -0.284 to -0.755, p=0.001). Conclusion: When compared to CLS, RAS has the advantage of lowering conversion and re-operation rates, albeit at the expense of higher operating time. CLS led to shorter hospital stays, but in some circumstances, the complication rates were on level with or lower than those of RAS. According to these results, RAS might be useful in some surgical situations and patient demographics.
Keywords: colorectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery, Meta-analysis, postoperative outcomes, robotic surgery, Systematic review
Received: 11 Oct 2025; Accepted: 09 Feb 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Al-Ihribat, Moqbel, Oun, Mekky, Youssef, Youssef, Khelifa, Sanhour and Elsayed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Alaa R. Al-Ihribat
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.