ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic surgery for Crohn's disease: multinational survey of colorectal surgeons.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly utilised in colorectal procedures, yet its adoption in Crohn’s disease (CD) remains limited. Challenges unique to CD—such as complex anatomy, prior operations, and inflammation—present substantial barriers to robotic integration, compounded by the absence of standardised operative strategies. We aimed to evaluate current global practices among colorectal surgeons regarding robotic ileocolic resection for CD, and to propose a standardised surgical planning framework to address variability in technique and perioperative planning. A structured multinational survey was iteratively developed using validated assessment tools, targeting colorectal consultants, fellows, and senior trainees and was disseminated via professional networks. Quantitative and qualitative responses regarding port placement, dissection strategies, intraoperative decision-making, and perceived barriers were analysed. Insights were synthesised with guidelines to inform the PRESERVED framework. The survey was disseminated via professional networks to colorectal surgeons in multiple countries. Survey responses (n = 30) from eight countries—predominantly UK-based (50%) and consultants (80%). Survey responses revealed low robotic uptake in IBD compared to colorectal cancer. Common challenges included adhesions, prior surgery, and multi-segment disease; robotic access was rarely a constraint (3.3%). Despite variable approaches, intracorporeal anastomosis and Pfannenstiel extraction were favoured. The PRESERVED framework—comprising nine modular perioperative phases—was developed to guide decision-making and mitigate CD-specific surgical risks. This study is the first multinational exploration of robotic surgical practices in CD. Despite limited uptake, expert insights underscore a growing interest in robotic approaches and the need for structured guidance. The PRESERVED framework offers an evidence-based, adaptable tool to support surgical planning and training. Further validation through consensus-building and multicentre prospective studies is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.