Early Laparoscopic Ileal Resection for Localized Ileocecal Crohn’s Disease: Hard Sell or a Revolutionary New Norm?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite reductions in surgical rates that have been observed with earlier use of biological therapy, surgery still constitutes an important tool in the therapeutic armamentarium in Crohn's disease (CD), particularly in patients with stenotic and penetrating phenotypes. In these scenarios, early surgical intervention is recommended, as bowel damage is present and irreversible, leading to lower efficacy with biologics. SUMMARY: The concept of early surgery in CD supposes the possible advantages of better surgical outcomes in luminal CD after initial resection. Optimal timing of surgical intervention is associated with better postoperative outcomes, whilst delays can lead to more technically difficult and extensive procedures, which may result in an increase in postoperative complication rates and higher rates of stoma formation. Furthermore, data from the LIR!C trial have demonstrated that early surgery in luminal localized inflammatory ileocecal CD is an adequate alternative to medical therapy, with lower societal costs in the long term. In this review, we discuss the position of early resection in ileocecal CD by critically reviewing available data, describing the ideal patients to be considered for early surgery, and weighing the potential advantages and disadvantages of an early surgery paradigm. KEY MESSAGES: While early surgery may not be the right choice for every patient, the ultimate decision regarding whether surgical or medical therapy should come first in the treatment paradigm must be individualized for each patient based on the disease characteristics, phenotype, risk factors, and personal preference. This highlights the importance of the multidisciplinary team, which remains a key pillar in deciding the overall management plan for patients with CD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".