The place of minimal access surgery (MAS) in current gynaecological practice remains controversial. As a consequence, MAS techniques have been subject to a significant amount of prospective, evidence-based assessment. The ultimate results of these comparative trials will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the future direction of our speciality. It is timely, therefore, to review the currently available data. Evidence from 2195 patients in 23 randomised clinical trials of five different treatment modalities (ectopic, ovarian cysts, myomectomy, colposuspension and hysterectomy) clearly demonstrates that uncomplicated MAS procedures produce patient friendly benefits, at least in the short term. No matter what operation is performed, the laparoscopic approach is associated with less pain, shorter hospital stay and shorter recovery. These immediate patient-orientated benefits are a generic consequence of replacing the manoeuvres of open surgery through laparotomy incisions with minimal access. These benefits must be offset against significant disadvantages. Minimal access surgery procedures always require the use of expensive, high technology equipment and usually take longer to perform. Such procedures may be more costly than current open procedures and costs will, in part, be dependent on the amount of disposable equipment employed. Patients undergoing MAS procedures may be at risk of new and/or increased risk of traditional complications. The longer-term results of most MAS procedures have not yet been determined. These potential benefits and disadvantages of MAS require that each procedure is carefully and individually assessed. This paper seeks to review the current evidence.