Is Minimally Invasive Surgery at an Inflection Point?

For a field in a constant state of development due to advancing knowledge, technique, and technology, no transition over the past 40 years has changed the surgical landscape as much as the shift toward minimally invasive surgery (MIS) from open surgery.

In disciplines ranging from general surgery to neurosurgery to urology, in procedures ranging from cholecystectomy to craniotomy to prostatectomy, surgeons using MIS often provide patients with equal or superior outcomes compared to open surgery, in addition to fewer complications, shortened hospital stays, and faster recovery, among other benefits.^1,2

MIS encompasses a range of modalities that surgeons around the world are learning, employing, and studying to determine the approach that best meets the needs of their patients and their own professional circumstances and skills—and the field may be at an inflection point that will determine where the focus will lie in the future.

While MIS has undeniably taken a prominent role, open surgery is still being practiced and remains a core part of the profession—and both approaches have implications for the future of surgery.

Shifting Scales Between Robotics and Laparoscopy

The history of MIS is long, but its modern conception for several specialties such as general surgery found its footing with the proliferation of laparoscopes in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, laparoscopic surgery rapidly grew and became the “gold standard” of several high-volume procedures like appendectomy or cholecystectomy.³

But in 2025, many surgeons will likely have noticed that robotic surgery, or robotic-assisted surgery, is receiving significant attention in research and use across a range of procedures. The data reveal a notable trend that represents a primary conversation in modern MIS: in general, robotic surgery seems to be waxing and, concomitantly, laparoscopic surgery may be waning for several common surgical procedures.⁴

In fact, some research suggests robotic surgery will overtake, or already has overtaken, laparoscopic surgery in a variety of procedures, including prostatectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatectomy, among others.⁵

The question is: Why is robotic surgery seeing such rapid growth today?

“Laparoscopy really hasn’t changed since the 90s. It still uses the same instrumentation, so there’s no technology that has improved beyond the fidelity of the cameras,” said David W. Larson, MD, MBA, FACS, a colorectal surgeon at the Mayo Clinic and professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, both in Rochester, Minnesota. “You are looking at more than 30 years of no real technological development.”

At the same time, robotic platforms are rapidly iterating, with the most popular multiport robots entering their fifth generation, while single-port platforms are gaining US Food and Drug Administration approval.

“These platforms have all built upon each other, and each one is better than the last, supplying surgeons with new, more improved technology that’s faster, more efficient, more facile, and takes less cognitive burden,” Dr. Larson said.

Overall, robotic surgery platforms have been advancing toward more complete intraoperative imaging, as well as a more comfortable operating experience for surgeons.

“With laparoscopy, you’re using more two-dimensional cameras. You’re using straight stick instruments that have some flexibility in them. But in robotics, the difference is, you have 3D visualization and camera technology—which does exist for laparoscopy, but it’s not as universal,” said Rana Higgins, MD, FACS, a minimally invasive general and bariatric surgeon at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and an associate professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) in Milwaukee.

“Robotic technology universally has 3D visualization and camera technology, and the instruments are wristed—there is also a difference, ergonomically, between the two, as laparoscopy requires standing with your arms up next to the patient while robotics allows you to sit,” she said.

Those wristed instruments and the overall ergonomics of performing surgery are proving to be critical, defining benefits of robotic approaches. These benefits are more in reference to how a surgeon efficiently works through a procedure, and less regarding surgeon neck, shoulder, and back comfort, although the positive impact of these advantages is undeniable.

Adapting to Robotics

This innate familiarity with the manual ergonomics of robotic surgery has implications not just when considering performing a robotic versus laparoscopic procedure, but also for how surgeons conceptualize the transition from open surgery to MIS.

“With robotic surgery, I can move instruments like my hand. In laparoscopy, they’re just straight sticks. So, the jump from open to robotics is a much more direct path,” Dr. Larson said. “The operation and how it’s performed, the movements—the ergonomics of it all is much more similar between robotics and open than they are from laparoscopy.”

Mid-career or more experienced surgeons who have been performing laparoscopy for years had to learn an entirely different way of doing things, because the instrumentation does not move like the hand, he added.

With robotics, the transition from open surgery practice was more direct. This conversion has been particularly noticeable and transformative in some specialties in which laparoscopy did not find a foothold, such as urology, gynecology, and surgical oncology. In these, the ability of robotic platforms to provide superior visualization in compact spaces and more precise movements around sensitive or healthy tissue has resulted in superior outcomes.

General surgeons are likely to face the most challenges when deciding between laparoscopy and robotics as this specialty relies heavily on laparoscopes that can take advantage of larger operative space. But even within that field, common, high-volume procedures such as hernia repair may benefit from a robotic approach.

“There are studies to show that the learning curve for a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is longer than the learning curve for a robotic inguinal hernia repair,” said Dr. Higgins, who also specializes in minimally invasive hernia repair. “In addition, robotics may provide the ability to do more complex ventral hernia repairs in more ergonomically challenging positions in ways that you couldn’t do laparoscopically because you were limited by the technology.”

Hernia repair is an example of how robotic platforms provide an opportunity to perform complex procedures with an ergonomic tool. An element as fundamental as suturing can be transformed into a learned skill that comes more naturally to surgeons with this technology.

“As an MIS surgeon, I do laparoscopic suturing all the time, but it is easier to teach a resident how to do robotic suturing, because it makes more sense. You’re using wrists as opposed to straight stick suturing with laparoscopy. While an incredibly important skill, it is not realistic to say that everyone is going to be a master at advanced laparoscopic suturing,” Dr. Higgins said.

“The technology provides an opening for surgeons to give patients minimally invasive approaches that they may not have had if they didn’t feel comfortable or have the training or exposure to do it laparoscopically,” she added.

Dr. Larson underscored that laparoscopy has a higher skill floor than robotics, meaning that while current practitioners can operate at an expert level, robotic surgery provides additional opportunities for surgeons to be involved in MIS.

“The surgeons who do laparoscopy at the highest level are incredible technicians, but robotics helps to level out skill for people who aren’t as technically gifted. They can provide the same outcomes because of the technology,” he said. “We’re upskilling surgeons from the baseline. A rising tide lifts all boats, and to me, robotics is a rising tide that not only benefits the surgeons but significantly benefits patients.”

There also has been a tangible shift toward robotics in terms of the highest-quality research—randomized controlled trials.

“I’ve been doing robotic surgery since 2008, but we’re now just starting to see large, randomized control trials that demonstrate robotic superiority over laparoscopy,” Dr. Larson said, noting that at an individual institution level, some of these results started to filter out between 2012 and 2020.

Future Promise, Present Practicalities

While the future appears to be one where the robotic approach will take the lead for many surgical procedures, that transition presently is in its early stages.

To begin with, further studies need to be completed, and research needs to be released providing a higher level of certainty regarding the superiority of robotic or laparoscopic surgery outcomes across the spectrum of disciplines and procedures.

Looking at one of the most common surgical procedures around the world—cholecystectomy—as an example, current research presents a range of findings. Some indicate that the robotic approach incurs a significant increase in bile duct injury complication rate versus laparoscopic, while others show decreased complications, conversion to open procedures, and shorter hospital stays.^6,7

In this interim period, as additional outcomes research accumulates, one of the most significant questions is related to cost and how that affects availability and the financial practicality of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery is generally found to be a more expensive approach in terms of intraoperative activities and infrastructure,⁸ though there is a down trending of costs for robotics over time in certain disciplines such as bariatrics.⁹

Existing OR infrastructure, in particular, could prove to be another financial challenge.

“In terms of hospital resources, we have hundreds of operating rooms in at the Mayo Clinic, and each one of them has a laparoscopic tower. So, I can do laparoscopy in every single OR, but I can’t do robotics. That’s a huge frame shift for hospitals—so as laparoscopy diminishes, we’ll need to retool the operating room so that we can do robotics,” Dr. Larson said.

“I’m not saying just jettison all of our laparoscopic equipment in every OR in the US, but we need to start thinking about the entire ecosystem,” he said. While surgeons over time may “vote with their feet” and move toward robotics, there often are administrative and political considerations that are tied to funding the transition to the new technology.

Open Surgery and Future of Surgical Education

The current era of surgery is defined by MIS, and both patients and surgeons continue seeking operations that lead to easier recovery, fewer complications, and improved outcomes.

However, open surgery remains a necessary part of a surgeon’s toolkit. Areas such as trauma, major oncologic resection, and organ transplantation continue to be mainly performed through open surgery because of ingress and egress to the operative space, as well the need to manually manipulate large tissue or organs (although even in these, MIS is advancing¹⁰).

Another reality that any surgeon employing MIS for an operation may encounter is converting to open if a surgeon does not feel that they are able to manage an unforeseen challenge—scar tissue, bleeding, or complex anatomy—with a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Conversion to open across specialties is associated with detrimental outcomes for patients and hospitals compared with a procedure with no conversion.¹¹

So, whether through circumstance, preference, or necessity, open surgery will always need to be an option for delivering the highest-quality outcome possible for patients.

“As a minimally invasive surgeon, many of my procedures that I do are minimally invasive, but I also need to know its limitations,” Dr. Higgins said. “If a patient isn’t tolerating the insufflation from minimally invasive surgery, that’s not what’s best for the patient, and then you convert to open. You need to have all the tools in your toolbox. It’s not fair to patients for us to just know one way, and only that way.”

While mastery of open surgery is essential for comprehensive surgical competence, surgical residents are, statistically, performing fewer open operations in their course of their training.¹² Experienced surgeons recognize that for as much as surgery is continuing to shift toward MIS, a lack of skill with open surgery imperils patient safety.

The core knowledge imparted by open surgery training, including a tactile understanding of a patient’s unique anatomy and disease presentation, remains a critical underpinning for MIS.

To that end, residency training must continue pushing forward with including evolving MIS technology and techniques, while also allowing adequate exposure to open surgery.

“I emphasize to the residents to get as much exposure as they can to open operative cases, which is even more important today because it is becoming less common,” said Dr. Higgins, who also is the General Surgery Residency Program director at MCW.

“We stress that residents try to take advantage of being in those cases, even if you’re not the first assist surgeon or the most senior resident. Even if you’re a more junior resident, get exposure to as much as you can see,” she said.

For open surgery, exposure refers to understanding how a case is set up to begin with.

“If you’re seeing less open surgery, it’s difficult to really get comfortable with that. You may understand inguinal anatomy, but if you don’t know how to set up an open inguinal hernia repair, you’re not going to do right by the patient,” Dr. Higgins said.

A major part of contemporary surgical education, and an effective way to address growing gaps with open surgery experience, is surgical simulation. While wet labs and core curricula continue to grow around MIS, simulation provides a safe environment to grow skills in all surgical modalities and is becoming a critical part of residency training for surgery because of duty-hour restrictions and lessened operative experience for junior residents.

Simulation acts as an adjunct for resident training that should include robotic, laparoscopic, and open components. For both cases—setup for open surgery and using the powerful visualization and manipulation tools in the various forms of MIS—simulation has become a core part of residency training to bring trainees up to a level of proficiency that produces high-quality outcomes and provides patient safety.

“We never have our residents just jump in and start doing minimally invasive surgery. They all need to do a robotic training curriculum, they all need to complete a laparoscopic curriculum, and so on. Simulation is a must for training programs to introduce residents to the technology in a safe, protected environment before they perform these techniques on a patient,” Dr. Higgins said.

The conversations happening within MIS, open surgery, and surgical training are developing, and will expand well beyond the scope of this article. Within clinical care itself, evolving technology and the balance of current practicalities and future potential will require surgeons to take the lead and emerge from this inflection point in a way that ensures patients are receiving the best possible care.

Matthew Fox is the Digital Managing Editor in the ACS Division of Integrated Communications in Chicago, IL.

References

1. Hale J, Landrum KR, Agala C, Vidri RA, et al. Minimally invasive vs. open radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: 30-day NSQIP outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2025;39(6):3873-3882.
2. Xiao ZK, Duan YH, Mao XY, Liang RC, et al. Traditional craniotomy versus current minimally invasive surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage: A propensity-matched analysis. World J Radiol. 2024;16(8):317-328.
3. Buia A, Stockhausen F, Hanisch E. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review. World J Methodol. 2015;5(4):238-254.
4. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911.
5. Violante T, Ferrari D, Novelli M, Larson DW. The death of laparoscopy—volume 2: A revised prognosis. A retrospective study. Ann Surg. Published online June 16, 2025.
6. Mullens CL, Sheskey S, Thumma JR, Dimick JB, et al. Patient complexity and bile duct injury after robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(3):e251705.
7. Maegawa FB, Stetler J, Patel D, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program comparative analysis. Surgery. 2025;178:108772.
8. Khorgami Z, Li WT, Jackson TN, Howard CA, et al. The cost of robotics: An analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2217-2221.
9. Read MD, Torikashvili J, Janjua H, Grimsley EA, et al. The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: A cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):63.
10. Jastaniah A, Grushka J. The role of minimally invasive surgeries in trauma. Surg Clin North Am. 2024;104(2):437-449.
11. Shah PC, de Groot A, Cerfolio R, et al. Impact of type of minimally invasive approach on open conversions across ten common procedures in different specialties. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(8):6067-6075.
12. Bingmer K, Ofshteyn A, Stein SL, Marks JM, et al. Decline of open surgical experience for general surgery residents. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):967-972.