Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic vs. laparoscopic IPAA in a high-volume referral centre: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study 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
Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) represents the gold standard in ulcerative colitis patients refractory to medical therapy. While laparoscopy is a well-established alternative to open surgery, further comparative evidence between laparoscopy and robotic approaches is required. This study aims to evaluate intraoperative performance and short-term postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic and robotic IPAA in a high-volume referral centre. This retrospective single-centre study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy between 2017 and 2025 at Sant' Orsola University Hospital, Bologna. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic cohorts using a propensity score-matched analysis. This study included 169 patients: 131 in the laparoscopic group and 38 in the robotic one. Demographic characteristics were comparable. The robotic cohort presented a lower conversion rate, though this did not reach statistical significance (13.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.078). On the other hand, it presented a faster return to oral diet (p < 0.001). Length of stay, duration of surgery and overall postoperative complications were comparable. The laparoscopic cohort experienced more severe complications (7% Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), while the robotic cohort did not exceed a Grade II. No robotic cases required reoperation at 30 days, compared to 2.3% in the laparoscopic group. Robotic IPAA yielded results comparable to laparoscopy regarding length of stay, duration of surgery and rate of complications. However, the robotic approach showcased a trend towards decreased conversion and 30-day reoperation. It was also associated with decreased complication severity, and faster return to an oral diet, suggesting a potential to expedite and enhance postoperative recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42920002What 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.