ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
A network meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic, open and robotic restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA].
Article in Updates in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite multiple attempts to compare open and laparoscopic approaches, data for robotic IPAA are still limited. The relative merit of the three approaches regarding safety and efficacy is still not known. Therefore, we conducted this study to provide up-to-date data regarding the safety and perioperative efficacy of laparoscopic, open and robotic approaches in restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. This network meta-analysis [NMA] was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The primary endpoint of our study was the overall complication rate. The last search date was 24/10/2025. A random effects (RE) multivariate network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework was utilized. Ranking was based on the surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] values. Overall, 63 studies and 11,699 patients were included. Regarding the primary outcome, laparoscopy had a significantly lower risk of overall complications compared to robotics (OR: 0.65, 95%CI [0.44, 0.97]) and ranked first (82.7%). Robotics decreased the risk of open conversion (OR: 0.12, 95%CI [0.01, 0.73]), whereas open was associated with lower risk of small bowel obstruction OR: 0.76, 95%CI [0.6, 0.96]) and readmission over laparoscopy (OR: 0.66, 95%CI [0.42, 0.99]). Both minimal invasive techniques required significantly longer operative time and reduced blood loss and LOS compared to open. Both minimal invasive approaches displayed superiority over open IPAA in various safety and efficacy outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334805What 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.