This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person rehabilitation. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid databases identified 14 eligible studies. The analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, assessing economic outcomes using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Findings indicate that telerehabilitation was cost-effective in three out of 14 studies included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The mean ICER for telerehabilitation compared to traditional rehabilitation varied, with a probability of cost-effectiveness reaching 90% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,000 per QALY. However, at a WTP threshold of $0, the probability of cost-effectiveness remained low, suggesting that telerehabilitation does not always dominate in cost-effectiveness analyses. The study highlights the potential of telerehabilitation to provide similar or improved health outcomes compared to traditional rehabilitation while reducing travel costs and enhancing patient access. Increased patient satisfaction, reduced hospital readmissions, and improved adherence to rehabilitation protocols contributed to the economic benefits observed. However, methodological heterogeneity across studies remains a limitation. Given the growing adoption of digital health technologies, telerehabilitation presents a viable and economically efficient alternative to in-person rehabilitation. Policymakers should consider integrating telerehabilitation into routine healthcare services, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to optimize cost-effectiveness and enhance accessibility. Further research should focus on standardizing cost-effectiveness evaluation methods to strengthen evidence for large-scale implementation.