ObjectiveThrough comparing the therapeutic efficacy of robot-assisted surgery (RS) and conventional surgery (CS) for mitral valve disease by meta-analysis to guide the choice of clinical operation.MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) and Wanfang Database were searched by computer from inception to June 2020. The literature of efficacy comparison between RS and CS was collected. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the literature. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsWe identified 11 studies of RS versus CS with 4 330 patients. Among them, 2 212 patients underwent RS and 2 118 underwent CS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with the CS, RS had longer cross-clamp time (MD=25.00, 95%CI 15.04 to 34.95, P<0.000 01), cardiopulmonary bypass time (MD=44.11, 95%CI 29.26 to 58.96, P<0.000 01) and operation time (MD=46.40, 95%CI 31.55 to 61.26, P<0.000 01). However, ICU stay (MD=–22.13, 95%CI –31.88 to –12.38, P<0.000 01) and hospital stay (MD=–1.81, 95%CI –2.69 to –0.92, P<0.000 01) were significantly shorter in the RS group; and the incidences of blood transfusion (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.89, P=0.03) and complications (OR=0.73, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.94, P=0.01) were significantly lower in the RS group.ConclusionAlthough RS has a longer operation time than CS, it has less damage, less bleeding, faster recovery and better curative efficacy.