Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. METHODS: Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03]. CONCLUSION: Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".