【Objective】 To compare clinical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic, 3D laparoscopic and traditional laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery (NSS). 【Methods】 From March 2012 to April 2015, 90 patients underwent laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery in our hospital due to renal carcinoma, including robot-assisted laparoscopic NSS in 21 patients, 3D laparoscopic NSS in 30 patients and traditional laparoscopic NSS in 39 patients. Their data were retrospectively reviewed. 【Results】 The operative time were (129.0 ± 13.9) min, (123.9 ± 18.7) min and (137.0 ± 22.1) min, respectively. There was significant difference between 3D group and LPN group, while no significant difference was found between RAPN group, 3D group and LPN group (P > 0.05). The renal warm ischemia time was (18.1 ± 5.1) min, (22.2 ± 6.5) min and (25.7 ± 5.4) min, respectively. There was significant difference between each group (P < 0.05). The total hospitalization charge was (46 858.3 ± 3 057.2), (21 904.8 ± 2 404.3) and (21 019.7 ± 1 478.9), respectively. There was significant difference between RARP group, 3D group and LPN group, while no significant difference was found between 3D group and LPN group (P > 0.05). However, the estimated blood loss,volume of drainage and postoperative hospital stay were similar between the 3 groups (P > 0.05). Each 1 case of 3D and LPN group was found delayed wound healing, and another 2 cases of peri-renal hematoma were also noticed in LPN group. All complications were cured; Follow-up ranged from 1 to 32 months, no tumor recurred and/or metastasis developed. All resection margins were negative. 【Conclusions】 Traditional laparoscopy was easy to apply and economic; 3D three-dimensional vision and low price has broad application prospects in 3D laparoscopy; the flexible surgical action of robot-assisted laparoscopic NSS make it the main method in the future of medical development.