Comparing surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the standard surgical approach for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) seeking bowel continuity. While laparoscopy improves recovery, robotic-assisted surgery may offer advantages in pelvic procedures. However, its comparative efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to compare short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted IPAA with laparoscopic and open techniques. Literature was searched across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies from January 2000 to June 2025. Included studies compared adult patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing IPAA for malignancy, UC or FAP. Primary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications; secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, readmission, and reoperation. Meta-analysis was performed using pooled odds ratios, mean difference and 95% confidence intervals. Ten studies including 3,166 patients met inclusion criteria. Robotic IPAA was associated with a shorter length of stay (WMD - 1.1 days, 95% CI - 1.8 to - 0.3) and a non-significant trend toward fewer conversions to open surgery (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.10-1.13). However, robotic procedures had longer operative times. Estimated blood loss did not differ significantly, and no significant differences were found in postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, readmissions, or reoperations. Robotic-assisted IPAA is a safe and viable alternative to laparoscopic and open surgery, offering benefits in shorter hospital stay and conversion rates. Although operative times are longer, morbidity is comparable. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long-term functional outcomes.