deserves some comments. First, this is not a quantitative review, while the authors had, in my opinion, sufficient data for pooling the results and doing a formal metaanalysis. The authors concluded that the patients undergoing robotic right colectomy had fewer anastomotic complications, better lymph node harvest, and reduced conversion rate and length of stay in 'a number of studies'. This conclusion does not appear to be in line with their published results, and it is somewhat misleading. The better lymph node harvest was reported in only two studies (of 14), and the lower anastomotic leak was reported in only one study (of 10). Furthermore, one cannot exclude confounding factors related to the anastomotic technique in this study [2]. The difference could be related to the use of an intracorporeal anastomosis rather than the robot. Regarding the length of stay, as everyone knows, this is a very subjective item that can be the result of several non-surgical factors. Furthermore, we do not know whether these patients benefitted or not from an enhanced recovery programme [3]. Finally, in terms of evidence based medicine, there is one randomized trial published in 2012 on this topic [4]. This trial showed no benefit from the robotic approach, therefore not justifying its greater cost. A recent metaanalysis confirmed this lack of a clear benefit [5]. Obviously, for the purists, a large randomized controlled trial is preferable to give a definitive answer. But one can ask, knowing the higher cost of robotic surgery for colectomy and the lack of benefits from the patients' perspective, do we really need a further randomized trial on robotic colectomy?