I think what PeachPlum is saying is that the words "the outcomes are comparable" has already injected an interpretation into the data, which, if not revealed in the article, is difficult to agree with.
You are right in that it looks like the robots had a lower incidence of major complications but the P value was short of "statistical significance" (i.e. 0.05) so it was not considered proven. This is a long way from saying "there was no difference".
