ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: an analysis of the Nationwide readmission database, 2016-2020.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic IPAA in a high-volume referral centre: a retrospective observational study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), including laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches, has been shown to improve outcomes for ulcerative colitis (UC), but few studies have compared outcomes between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic IPAA. This study aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic IPAA.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study utilized the U.S. Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2020. Patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing robotic or laparoscopic IPAA for UC were included. Outcomes measured were in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, complications, and 30-day and 90-day readmission rates. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline characteristics, and multivariable regression was applied for adjusted analyses.
resultsAmong 820 patients with UC undergoing IPAA, 242 robot-assisted and 242 laparoscopic cases were matched after PSM. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced following PSM. Robotic-assisted IPAA was associated with higher total hospital costs compared with the laparoscopic approach (adjusted mean difference, 24,460 USD; 95% CI 7.69-41.24; p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed between groups in LOS, overall postoperative complications, or 30- and 90-day readmission rates.
conclusionIn this nationwide analysis, robotic-assisted IPAA was associated with higher hospital costs but comparable short-term clinical outcomes relative to laparoscopy. These findings suggest that while robotic IPAA is feasible and safe, its higher cost without clear short-term clinical benefit warrants careful consideration when selecting the surgical approach.
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.