Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches—A Review of the Literature

Background: Minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care in colorectal cancer management, with laparoscopic techniques widely adopted due to their established short-term benefits and comparable oncological outcomes to open surgery. More recently, robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as an advanced minimally invasive alternative, offering enhanced visualization, improved instrument dexterity, and superior ergonomics. However, the extent to which these technical advantages translate into clinically meaningful improvements remains a subject of ongoing debate. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, including studies published between 2005 and 2025. Eligible studies comprised randomized controlled trials, observational studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomy for colon cancer. Outcomes of interest included intraoperative parameters (operative time, blood loss, conversion rate), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, complications, mortality), and oncological endpoints (lymph node yield, resection margins, survival). The review was performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: A total of 150 studies met the inclusion criteria. Robotic colectomy was consistently associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower conversion rates to open surgery, and shorter length of hospital stay, albeit at the expense of longer operative times, particularly during the learning phase. Oncological outcomes, including lymph node harvest and margin status, were comparable between approaches, with some studies reporting a modest increase in lymph node yield in robotic procedures. The adoption of intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly higher in robotic surgery, contributing to improved postoperative recovery and reduced wound-related complications. Composite quality metrics, such as textbook outcome (TO), were more frequently achieved in robotic cohorts, largely driven by shorter hospitalization and lower complication rates. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials remains limited, and heterogeneity among studies persists. Conclusions: Robotic colectomy and rectal resection represent a safe and effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer, offering potential advantages in perioperative outcomes and surgical precision. Its benefits appear particularly relevant in technically demanding cases, such as deep pelvic dissection and obese patients. Nevertheless, higher costs, longer operative times during the initial learning curve, and limited high-quality randomized evidence warrant cautious adoption. Future large-scale randomized studies are needed to clarify long-term oncological outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the optimal integration of robotic platforms into standard colorectal surgical practice.