Safety of perioperative treatment with biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing bowel surgery: Experience from a large urban center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risks of peri- and postoperative complications after bowel surgery in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving biologics are still discussed controversially. We therefore addressed the safety of different biologics that were applied in our IBD center before surgery. METHODS: Data of IBD patients who underwent bowel resections between 2012 and 2022 at our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Exposure to biologics was defined by receiving biologics within 12 weeks before resective abdominal surgery. Safety considerations included minor complications, such as infections and wound healing disorders and major complications, e.g., anastomotic insufficiency or abscess formation. RESULTS: A total of 447 IBD patients (334 with Crohn's disease, 113 with ulcerative colitis), 51.9% female, were included and followed for a median follow-up of 45 months [range 0-113]. A total of 73.9% (326/447) were undergoing medical treatment at date of surgery, 61.5% (275/447) were treated with biologics within 3 months and 42.3% (189/447) within 4 weeks before surgery. Most surgeries (97.1%) were planned electively and 67.8% were performed laparoscopically. Major and minor complications occurred in 20.8% (93/447) of patients. Serious complications were rare: Six patients had acute postoperative bleeding, one CD patient developed peritonitis and two CD patients died postoperatively. After adjusting for age, disease duration, disease activity, Montreal classification, and medical treatment at date of surgery, no significant differences were observed regarding complications and exposure to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective single center study of 447 IBD patients goes to demonstrate that perioperative use of biologics is not associated with a higher risk of complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".