COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROBOTIC, LAPAROSCOPIC, AND OPEN SURGERY: CLINICAL OUTCOMES, COSTS, AND ERGONOMICS
Abstract
Background: The evolution of surgical practice has seen a significant shift from open surgery toward minimally invasive techniques. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery (CLS) replaced many open procedures. It offers benefits like reduced length of hospital stay and lower infection rates. Subsequent technological advancement introduced Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS), notably utilizing systems like Da Vinci. RAS was specifically developed to overcome the inherent technical limitations of CLS. These include restricted instrument range and two-dimensional viewing. The continuous integration of advanced technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), is defining the future role of technology in surgery. This moves towards enhanced precision and autonomous systems.
Objective: This analysis aims to synthesize the current evidence comparing Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) to Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery (CLS) and open surgery. It focuses on key parameters including clinical outcomes (safety and efficacy), socio-economic costs, and surgeon ergonomics.
Methods: This is a narrative synthesis drawing upon recent systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comparative retrospective studies found in the literature. These primarily compared RAS and CLS across various surgical disciplines. Examples include colorectal surgery, gynecological surgery (e.g., hysterectomy), and nephrectomy.
Results: RAS systems offer inherent technical advantages such as superior visualization (3D, high-definition) and enhanced precision due to tremor filtration, motion scaling, and articulated instruments. The learning curve for performing complex technical tasks, such as intracorporeal suturing, is significantly shorter for novice surgeons utilizing robotic assistance compared to those performing CLS. In clinical practice, RAS generally yields comparable results to CLS in terms of major postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission rates. However, RAS is consistently associated with a significantly lower conversion rate to open surgery and a shorter length of hospital stay across nearly all analyzed surgical categories. Conversely, RAS procedures are typically associated with significantly higher total costs (including hospitalization and operative costs) compared to CLS. Furthermore, the operative time for RAS is generally longer than for CLS. In terms of ergonomics, studies indicate that RAS offers better outcomes for surgeons. This results in reduced physical demand and muscle strain compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique.
Conclusion: Robotic surgery shows considerable potential for the future, especially for complex surgical procedures performed in anatomically challenging areas. This is primarily due to its ability to minimize conversion rates and shorten hospital stays. Nonetheless, given the substantial associated costs, cost optimization and reduction in equipment and procedure expenses are critical steps. These are required to ensure widespread accessibility and justify its overall value compared to the cost-effective laparoscopic approach.
References
Ali, M., Zhu, X., Wang, Y., Ding, J., Zhang, Q., Sun, Q., Baral, S., & Wang, D. (2022). A retrospective study of post-operative complications and cost analysis in robotic rectal resection versus laparoscopic rectal resection. Frontiers in Surgery, 9, 969038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.969038
Chabot, S., Calleja-Agius, J., & Horeman, T. (2024). A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery. Surgical Techniques Development, 13(1), 22–57. https://doi.org/10.3390/std13010003
Cooper, H., Lau, H. M., & Mohan, H. (2025). A systematic review of ergonomic and muscular strain in surgeons comparing robotic to laparoscopic approaches. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 19(1), 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02401-6
Paul-Dehlinger, R., Vappereau, A., Le Bras, A., Oliveira, J., Favier, A., Belghiti, J., Uzan, C., Durand-Zaleski, I., & Canlorbe, G. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted total hysterectomy for benign pathologies compared to laparoscopic surgery: A retrospective study with propensity score. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 53(9), 102821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102821
Hong, Y. E., Shim, H., & Shin, M. (2025). Costs and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery in South Korea: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1683482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1683482
Ielpo, B., Podda, M., Burdio, F., Sanchez-Velazquez, P., Guerrero, M.-A., Nuñez, J., Toledano, M., Morales-Conde, S., Mayol, J., Lopez-Cano, M., Espín-Basany, E., Pellino, G., & The ROBOCOSTES Study Collaborators. (2022). Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES). Frontiers in Surgery, 9, 866041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.866041
Iftikhar, M., Saqib, M., Zareen, M., & Mumtaz, H. (2024). Artificial intelligence: Revolutionizing robotic surgery: review. Annals of Medicine & Surgery, 86(9), 5401–5409. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000002426
Köckerling, F. (2014). Robotic vs. Standard Laparoscopic Technique - What is Better? Frontiers in Surgery, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2014.00015
Leijte, E., De Blaauw, I., Van Workum, F., Rosman, C., & Botden, S. (2020). Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting. Surgical Endoscopy, 34(8), 3679–3689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07263-2
Patel, V., Saikali, S., & Moschovas, M. C. (2025). Robotics, artificial intelligence, telepresence, and telesurgery: The future of urology. Asian Journal of Urology, 12(2), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2025.03.001
Pérez-Salazar, M. J., Caballero, D., Sánchez-Margallo, J. A., & Sánchez-Margallo, F. M. (2024). Comparative Study of Ergonomics in Conventional and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery. Sensors, 24(12), 3840. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24123840
Rehman, M. U., Moussa, R., Ahmed, N., Brodie, A., Tarrar, T., Rehman, A., Malik, K., & Ahmed, J. (2025). Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery During the Early Learning Curve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.86196
Rivero-Moreno, Y., Rodriguez, M., Losada-Muñoz, P., Redden, S., Lopez-Lezama, S., Vidal-Gallardo, A., Machado-Paled, D., Cordova Guilarte, J., & Teran-Quintero, S. (2024). Autonomous Robotic Surgery: Has the Future Arrived? Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.52243
Singh, A., Kaur, M., Swaminathan, C., Siby, J., Singh, K. K., & Sajid, M. S. (2024). Laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis to differentiate between postoperative outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 9, 3–3. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh-23-56
Wang, W., Liu, J., Wang, J., Li, L., Kong, D., & Wang, J. (2025). Comparative study of robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A single-center experience. Frontiers in Oncology, 14, 1507323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1507323
Zou, J., Zhu, H., Tang, Y., Huang, Y., Chi, P., & Wang, X. (2025). Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surgery, 25(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02805-z
Park, E. J., Lee, H. G., Park, Y. Y., Park, S. J., Lee, K. Y., & Lee, S.-H. (2025). Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in Korea: A nationwide health insurance database analysis from 2019 to 2023. Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, 28(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2025.28.1.25
Park, J., Bak, S., Song, J.-Y., Chung, Y.-J., Yuki, G., Lee, S. J., Mun, J., & Kim, M.-R. (2023). Robotic surgery in Gynecology: The present and the future. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 66(6), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23132
Views:
4
Downloads:
0
Copyright (c) 2025 Marianna Rudzińska, Mikołaj Zalewski, Konrad Zieliński, Stanisław Jurkowski, Łukasz Krzystek, Karolina Buć, Paweł Buć, Michał Mazurek, Karolina Ganczar, Jagoda Józefczyk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
