ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026
Endoscopic recurrence of Crohn's disease following laparoscopic versus robotic ileocolic resection.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic approach is increasingly being used for surgery in Crohn's disease. Robotic ileocolic resection (ICR) for Crohn's disease (CD) is comparable to laparoscopic ICR for short term outcomes; however, no studies have compared longer-term recurrence rates between these approaches.
objectiveThe objective was to compare longer-term recurrence rates between these approaches.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using a deidentified single institution research database containing data extracted from the electronic health record. We included all patients with CD who underwent minimally invasive ICR between 2017 and 2024. The primary outcome was endoscopic recurrence within 18 months postoperatively, defined as Rutgeerts score ≥ i2. The time-to-event analysis was performed to compare time to endoscopic recurrence between laparoscopic versus robotic ICR.
resultsA total of 164 patients were included in study, with a predominant majority prescribed an advanced medical therapy postoperatively (93.9%). Within 18 months postoperatively, 22/164 (13.4%) patients experienced endoscopic recurrence: 16/127 (12.5%) in the laparoscopic cohort and 6/37 (16.2%) in the robotic cohort. In the time-to-event analysis, there was no statistically detectable difference in Kaplan-Meier curves compared between laparoscopic and robotic ICR (log rank p = 0.115). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for smoking history and history of ICR, there was no statistically detectable difference in endoscopic recurrence rates within 18 months postoperatively compared between laparoscopic and robotic ICR (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.341-3.74, p = 0.842).
conclusionsIn this retrospective cohort, no statistically detectable differences in endoscopic recurrence between approaches was observed; however, conclusions are limited by small sample size, low event rates, and widespread postoperative biologic use and should be interpreted as exploratory only..
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.