Background: Minimally invasive surgery using tubular retractors was developed to minimize injury of surrounding brain during the removal of deep-seated lesions. No evidence supports the superiority of any available tubular retraction system in the treatment of these lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes and complications after the resection of deep-seated lesions with tubular retractors and among available systems. Methods: A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies in which tubular retractors were used to resect deep-seated brain lesions in patients ≥18 years old. Results: The search strategy yielded 687 articles. Thirteen articles complying with inclusion criteria and quality assessment were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 309 patients operated on between 2008 and 2018 were evaluated. The most common lesions were gliomas (n = 127), followed by metastases (n = 101) and meningiomas (n = 19). Four different tubular retractors were used: modified retractors (n = 121, 39.1%); METRx (n = 60, 19.4%); BrainPath (n = 92, 29.7%); and ViewSite Brain Access System (n = 36,11.7%). Estimated gross total resection rate was 75% (95% confidence interval, 69%–80%; I2 = 9%), whereas the estimated complication rate was 9% (95% confidence interval: 6%–14%; I2 = 0%). None of the different brain retraction systems was found to be superior regarding extent of resection or complications on multiple comparisons (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Tubular retractors represent a promising tool to achieve maximum safe resection of deep-seated brain lesions. However, there does not seem to be a statistically significant difference in extent of resection or complication rates among tubular retraction systems.