Objective To compare the clinical effects of traditional manual and robot-assisted implantation of cannulated screws in the treatment of femoral neck fracture. Methods The medical records of patients with femoral neck fracture in Department of Orthopaedics, People’s Hospital of Deyang City were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups, including the traditional manual implantation group from January to December 2018 and the robot-assisted implantation group from May 2019 to May 2020. The clinical therapeutic efficacy of the two groups were compared. Harris hip function score was used to evaluate hip function. Results A total of 85 patients were included. All patients had closed fractures. There were 45 cases in the traditional manual implantation group and 40 cases in the robot-assisted implantation group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in preoperative waiting time, operation time, hospitalization time, fracture healing time, complications within one year after operation, or Harris hip function score one year after operation (P>0.05). The placement nail time [(11.1±2.0) vs. (23.8±2.3) min; t=27.142, P<0.001], frequency of guide pin insertion [(4.7±1.2) vs. (11.4±1.7) times; t=20.640, P<0.001], frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy [(10.8±1.7) vs. (21.0±1.8) times; t=26.990, P<0.001] and intraoperative blood loss [(8.1±2.0) vs. (12.0±1.7) mL; t=9.711, P<0.001] in the robot-assisted implantation group were less than those in the traditional manual implantation group. No wound infection or neurovascular injury was found in the two groups. Conclusion Robot-assisted implantation of cannulated screws in the treatment of femoral neck fracture has the advantages of less fluoroscopy, fewer guide pin insertion, less blood loss, more accurate screw placement than the traditional manual implantation of cannulated screws.