ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) by meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched for manuscripts about RDP versus LDP form PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CKNI, CBM, and WanFang Databases. The parallel quality assessment was selected according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 23 articles were included, and a total of3 487 patients enrolled who underwent pancreatic body resection. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the LDP group, the RDP group had a longer operation time [MD=15.52, 95%CI was (0.60, 30.45), P=0.04], but the intraoperative blood loss was less [MD=–59.18, 95%CI was (–111.62, –6.73), P=0.03], the intraoperative spleen preservation rate was higher [OR=1.74, 95%CI was (1.02, 2.96), P=0.04], the intraoperative conversion to open rate was lower [ OR=0.45, 95%CI was (0.34, 0.60), P<0.000 01], and postoperative hospital stay was shorter [MD=–0.90, 95%CI was (–1.70, –0.10), P=0.03], while there were no significant differences in intraoperative blood transfusion rate [OR=0.88, 95%CI was (0.60, 1.30), P=0.52], incidence of postoperative overall complication [OR=0.88, 95%CI was (0.68, 1.13), P=0.32] and pancreatic leakage [OR=0.91, 95%CI was (0.72, 1.14), P=0.41], 90-day readmission rate [OR=1.32, 95%CI was (0.95, 1.83), P=0.10], and 90-day reoperation rate [OR=0.73, 95%CI was (0.40, 1.33), P=0.30].ConclusionsRDP has the advantages of less bleeding, low turnover rate, and short postoperative hospital stay. However, due to the quality limitations of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies.