Robotic surgery, as an increasingly widespread application in the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer, still faces obvious discrepancies in recommendations, indications, and evidence strength across existing guidelines. This study systematically analyzed 31 relevant guidelines and consensus statements (retrieved from Chinese and English databases from January 2010 to May 2025) from two dimensions: feasibility (effectiveness, safety, etc.) and training quality control.The results showed that colorectal cancer guidelines had a higher proportion (4 guidelines) of "clear recommendations" for robotic surgery, while gastric cancer guidelines predominantly presented "conditional recommendations" or no recommendations. In the training and quality control dimension, although structured suggestions received positive recommendations, more than half were based on low or very low-quality evidence. Evidence mapping indicated insufficient matching between "case-specific recommendations" and evidence grades in the feasibility dimension, while training processes emphasized the importance of standardized systems and team collaboration.The study highlights the existing heterogeneity in evidence-based guidelines for robotic gastrointestinal surgery, with colorectal cancer demonstrating a more mature evidence base and gastric cancer showing notable evidence gaps. It is recommended that future guideline development should strengthen the consistency between recommendation grades and evidence levels, promote high-quality research in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and improve surgeon training and certification systems to facilitate standardized clinical translation of robotic gastrointestinal surgery.

Robotic surgery, as an increasingly widespread application in the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer, still faces obvious discrepancies in recommendations, indications, and evidence strength across existing guidelines. This study systematically analyzed 31 relevant guidelines and consensus statements (retrieved from Chinese and English databases from January 2010 to May 2025) from two dimensions: feasibility (effectiveness, safety, etc.) and training quality control.The results showed that colorectal cancer guidelines had a higher proportion (4 guidelines) of "clear recommendations" for robotic surgery, while gastric cancer guidelines predominantly presented "conditional recommendations" or no recommendations. In the training and quality control dimension, although structured suggestions received positive recommendations, more than half were based on low or very low-quality evidence. Evidence mapping indicated insufficient matching between "case-specific recommendations" and evidence grades in the feasibility dimension, while training processes emphasized the importance of standardized systems and team collaboration.The study highlights the existing heterogeneity in evidence-based guidelines for robotic gastrointestinal surgery, with colorectal cancer demonstrating a more mature evidence base and gastric cancer showing notable evidence gaps. It is recommended that future guideline development should strengthen the consistency between recommendation grades and evidence levels, promote high-quality research in upper gastrointestinal surgery, and improve surgeon training and certification systems to facilitate standardized clinical translation of robotic gastrointestinal surgery.