Background/Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of curative treatment. Over the past two decades, robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as an evolution of minimally invasive surgery, aiming to overcome several limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This narrative review summarizes the current state of the art of robotic surgery in CRC. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases, focusing on publications from 2015 to 2026. The review provides an overview of robotic platforms and summarizes the available clinical evidence. Priority was given to randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, large observational studies, and clinical practice guidelines. The review focuses on major commercially available robotic systems, including the da Vinci®, Hugo™ RAS, and Versius® platforms, as well as emerging robotic technologies. Results: Robotic colorectal surgery showed potentially favorable perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopy. In rectal cancer, robotic approaches were associated with improved total mesorectal excision quality, lower conversion rates, and improved postoperative functional outcomes. Emerging evidence also suggested potential improvements in disease-free survival and local disease control following robotic rectal surgery. In colon cancer, robotic colectomy were associated with lower conversion rates, reduced blood loss, and faster postoperative recovery, with comparable long-term oncological outcomes. However, robotic procedures showed longer operative times and higher procedural costs. Conclusions: Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive approach, particularly in rectal cancer surgery. The development of new robotic platforms and increasing market competition may improve cost sustainability and expand its future role in colorectal cancer management.
Roberto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: