ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in hiatus hernia repair. MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched to collect literature comparing the efficacy and safety of RAS and CLS for hiatus hernia repair published from their inception to November 7, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and RevMan 5.4.1 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 15 retrospective cohort studies with 18239 patients were finally included. The NOS scores of the included literature were all≥7 points. Meta-analysis results showed that RAS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative complications as the primary outcome [OR=0.56, 95%CI (0.42, 0.77), P<0.01]. There was no statistical difference between the two methods in terms of average operation time [MD=−0.74, 95%CI (−12.99, 11.51), P=0.91], average intraoperative blood loss [MD=−24.47, 95%CI (−54.80, 5.87), P=0.11], intraoperative complications [OR=0.76, 95%CI (0.29, 2.01), P=0.58], average postoperative hospital stay [MD=−0.24, 95%CI (−0.75, 0.27), P=0.36], postoperative GERD score [MD=−0.04, 95%CI (−0.41, 0.33), P=0.81], and 30-day readmission rate [OR=0.60, 95%CI (0.30, 1.20), P=0.15]. The cost of CLS surgery was less than that of RAS [SMD=1.59, 95%CI (1.16, 2.01), P<0.01]. ConclusionRAS has comparable efficacy and safety to CLS in hiatus hernia repair.