ArticleBJS open2025
Comparative analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis outcomes: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07278687 (LATA-IBD Trial a Laparoscopic and Transanal IPAA-surgery Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
LATA-IBD Trial a Laparoscopic and Transanal IPAA-surgery Trial.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Essential Updates in the Surgical Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Topics From 2024 to Mid-2026.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Outcomes of restorative proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a matched-cohort analysis of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A network meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic, open and robotic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA].Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis: an analysis of the Nationwide readmission database, 2016-2020.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIleal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a common surgical procedure for patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. This study compared the outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open IPAA techniques, with a focus on surgical complications and pouch failure rates.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent IPAA at three Mayo Clinic locations between 2015 and 2020. Data on patient demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared across the three surgical approaches. Pouch failure was defined as the need for pouch excision or a diverting loop ileostomy.
resultsIn all, 401 patients underwent IPAA with either an open (149, 37.2%), robotic (145, 36.2%), or laparoscopic (107, 26.7%) technique. The overall rate of pouch failure was 6.5% and did not differ significantly between the three surgical approaches. Compared with laparoscopy, robotic IPAA was associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery (1.4 versus 17.8%; P < 0.0001) and fewer 30-day readmissions (15.9% versus 28.0%; P = 0.02). However, robotic and laparoscopic IPAA approaches had higher rates of venous thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism and readmission than the open approach. Pouchitis was the most common cause of pouch failure across all surgical techniques.
conclusionRobotic IPAA had lower conversion and reduced 30-day admission rates compared with a laparoscopic approach. However, open surgery had lower rates of 30-day readmission and rates thromboembolism than robotic IPAA. The surgical approach itself does not appear to significantly impact long-term pouch failure rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.