RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain as to whether robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery (RACBS) is superior to non-robotic procedures. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. Two review authors independently screened citations, assessed trial quality and performed data extraction. RESULTS: Three trials met the inclusion criteria. None was randomized. Compared with non-robotic approaches, RACBS was associated with longer surgical times, shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays, higher extubation rates and lower odds for atrial fibrillation as well as myocardial infarction. There were no differences for the odds of stroke and mortality between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although robotic-assisted coronary bypass appears to be promising, the study designs were not adequate and may have a high risk of selection bias. There is a need for randomized trials to corroborate the findings and to determine the long-term benefits of RACBS compared with traditional surgical approaches.