Objective Direct insertion of the trocar is an alternative method to Veress needle insertion for the creation of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two entry closed techniques. Data source A systematic review of the literature was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO. Methods The literature search was constructed until May 01, 2022, around search terms for “Veress,” “direct trocar,” “needle,” “insertion,” and “laparoscopic ways of entry.” This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA Statement 2020. Results Sixteen controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies were included in the systematic review. We found no significant differences in the risk of major complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN: bowel injuries (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.24–2.36, P  = 0.63), major vascular injuries (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 0.56–5.38, P  = 0.34), port site hernia (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.28–20.71,  P  = 0.42). DTI has a lower risk of minor complications such as subcutaneous emphysema (OR = 5.19 95% CI: 2.27–11.87, P  < 0.0001), extraperitoneal insufflation (OR = 5.93 95% CI: 1.69–20.87, P  = 0.006), omental emphysema (OR = 18.41, 95% CI: 7. 01–48.34, P  < 0.00001), omental bleeding (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.18–4.55, P  = 0.01), and lower number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.05–4.81, P  = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time required to achieve complete insufflation (MD =  − 15.53, 95% CI: − 91.32 to 60.27, P  = 0.69), trocar site bleeding (OR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.25–1.79, P  = 0.42), and trocar site infection (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.34–4.20, P  = 0.78). Conclusion There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of major complications during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN. A lower number of minor complications were observed in DTI compared with those in Veress access.