ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Outcomes of restorative proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a matched-cohort analysis of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
backgroundIleal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) remains the gold standard for restorative proctocolectomy, yet its technical complexity has limited widespread minimally invasive adoption. Robotic surgery was introduced to overcome the ergonomic and visualization challenges of laparoscopy, but comparative evidence among open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted IPAA in tertiary care remains scarce.
methodsA matched-cohort analysis was performed on adult patients undergoing proctectomy with IPAA for ulcerative and indeterminate colitis (January 2005-September 2025) at a tertiary referral center. Patients were stratified by surgical approach: open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted. The robot-assisted cohort included only cases performed with the modular Hugo™ RAS platform. Primary endpoints were total operative time and 30-day postoperative surgical complications. Multivariable regression, propensity score matching, and G-computation were applied to adjust for confounders such as age, BMI, ASA class, disease duration, and biologic exposure.
resultsAmong 764 patients, 573 underwent open, 145 laparoscopic, and 46 robot-assisted IPAA. Adjusted analyses demonstrated no significant differences in 30-day surgical complications between robot-assisted and laparoscopic (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.63-3.90) or open (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.57-3.44) approaches. Both minimally invasive techniques yielded faster bowel function recovery (- 1.2 days vs open, p < 0.001) and reduced hospital stay (- 4.1 days for robot-assisted, - 4.7 days for laparoscopic; p < 0.05). Operative time was longer in minimally invasive groups but similar between robot-assisted and laparoscopic cases.
conclusionIn expert centers, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted completion IPAA demonstrate preliminary safety, feasibility, and short-term equivalence. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, and modern robotic platforms achieve procedural efficiency comparable to laparoscopy, although larger multicenter cohorts are needed to confirm equivalence for rare postoperative outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42637942What 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.