A total of 130 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve surgery and conventional mitral valve surgery with full sternotomy between 2014 and 2020 were included in our study. All patients were divided into two groups; Group I, with 64 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve replacement, and Group II, with 66 patients with conventional full sternotomy. General demographic data (age, gender, body weights, etc.), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, hyperlipidemia, etc.), intraoperative variables (cardiopulmonary bypass times, cross-clamp times) postoperative ventilation times, drainage amounts, transfusion amount, inotropic need, revision, arrhythmia, intensive care and hospital stay times and mortality were analyzed retrospectively. According to conventional methods, robotic mitral valve replacement is an effective and reliable method, since total perfusion and cross clamp times are longer, drainage amount and blood transfusion need are less, ventilation time, intensive care and hospital stay time are shorter. Compared to conventional methods, robotic surgery is an increasingly widespread successful treatment option because of its early mobilization, rapid recovery, better cosmetic outcome and improving quality of life.