Robotic-Assisted Techniques in Minimally Invasive General Surgery: Global Evidence and Latin American Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64784/018Palabras clave:
Robotic surgery, minimally invasive general surgery, cost-effectiveness, Latin America, surgical innovation, training models, healthcare equityResumen
Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery has emerged as a transformative advancement in general surgery, combining enhanced precision, stability, and visualization to optimize clinical outcomes. This review analyzes twenty international studies published between 2021 and 2025, integrating data from Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and training models associated with robotic-assisted procedures. Using a methodological framework based on the DMAIC cycle (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control), the study identifies the strengths and limitations of robotic systems in procedures such as hernia repair, cholecystectomy, fundoplication, bariatric, pancreatic, adrenal, and esophageal surgeries. Results indicate that robotic-assisted techniques offer superior ergonomics, lower complication rates, and shorter hospital stays compared with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery, despite slightly longer operative times and higher direct costs. However, long-term economic analyses suggest that these costs are offset by decreased morbidity, improved recovery, and better institutional efficiency. In Latin America, the progressive incorporation of robotics, supported by structured academic programs and regional cooperation, demonstrates that equitable technological adoption is achievable even in middle-income countries. The study concludes that robotic-assisted general surgery represents not only a technological innovation but also a strategic step toward value-based, patient-centered, and globally accessible healthcare.
Referencias
Abou Assali, M., et al. (2025). Robotic Care Outcomes Project (ROBOCOP) for elective cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12109-1
AlFataftah, S., et al. (2025). Safety and efficacy of robotic vs laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: Meta-analysis. Hernia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03484-8
Arunthavanathan, D., et al. (2025). The Danish Inguinal Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT): Study protocol/early results. Hernia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03402-y
Bertoni, M. V., et al. (2021). Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: Systematic review & meta-analysis. Obesity Surgery, 31(11), 5022–5033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-021-05668-4
Campbell, S., et al. (2023). A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open cholecystectomy in urgent/emergent settings. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 18, 50. https://wjes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13017-023-00521-8
Davey, M. G., et al. (2023). Comparing surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to adrenalectomy: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 408(1), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02911-7
de’Angelis, N., et al. (2024). Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 38(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10545-5
Gonçalves-Costa, D., et al. (2024). Short-term outcomes and cost of robotic fundoplication/hiatal repair: Systematic review & meta-analysis. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03368-y
Gritsiuta, A. I., et al. (2025). Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: Evidence update. Annals of Esophagus, 8, 20. https://aoe.amegroups.org/article/view/8273/html
Huerta, S., et al. (2025). Open, laparoscopic, and robotic groin hernia repair: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(3), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14030990
Li, P., et al. (2023). Robotic vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Perioperative outcomes—Systematic review & meta-analysis. Updates in Surgery, 75(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01413-3
Li, X., et al. (2024). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic TAPP procedures including latest studies. Frontiers in Surgery, 11, 1322332. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896538/
Li, X., et al. (2024). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic TAPP for inguinal hernia. PLOS ONE, 19(2), e0298989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298989
Maegawa, F. B., et al. (2025). Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Contemporary outcomes. The American Journal of Surgery. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039606024005853
Singh, A., et al. (2024). Laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Cureus, 16(2), e54727. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838610/
Singh, A., et al. (2025). Laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair with mesh: A systematic review. Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery. https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2024.13809/full
Tran, E., et al. (2024). Systematic review of robotic ventral hernia repair with meta-analysis. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 94(5), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.18822
van Ramshorst, T. M. E., et al. (2023). Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review & meta-analysis (including costs). Surgical Endoscopy, 37(9), 7323–7342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y
Velardi, A. M., et al. (2024). Advancements in bariatric surgery: Comparative review with focus on robotics. Cureus, 16(2), e54651. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10890254/
Zhang, Y., et al. (2023). Robotic vs conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: Meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery, 278(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005782