BACKGROUND: IPAA has become the criterion standard for treating ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected cases of Crohn's colitis. Robotic surgery promises improved postoperative outcomes and decreased length of stay. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits of robotic IPAA compared to laparoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term 30-day postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study from a single, high-volume center. SETTINGS: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (tertiary referral center for IBD). PATIENTS: All adult patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy between January 2015 and April 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day complications, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, 30-day readmission, and 30-day reoperation. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were included in the study; 107 underwent robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy, whereas 110 had laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. Operating time was significantly longer in the robotic group (263 +/- 38 vs 228 +/- 75 minutes, p < 0.0001). The robotic group also had lower estimated blood loss (81.5 +/- 77.7 vs 126.8 +/- 111.0 mL, p = 0.0006) as well as fewer conversions (0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.003). Patients in the robotic group received more intraoperative fluids (3099 +/- 1140 vs 2472 +/- 996 mL, p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference in length of stay, 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, rate of diverting loop ileostomy closure at 3 months, and surgical IPAA complication rate after ileostomy closure. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single-center study, potential bias because of the novelty of the robotic approach, and lack of long-term and quality-of-life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy may offer advantages in terms of estimated blood loss and conversion rate while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. See Video Abstract.