What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic ileocecal resection versus traditional surgical methods in treating Crohn's disease.

April 19, 2026Open Access

Reduced conversion and readmission rates in robotic ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease: a propensity-matched analysis of the Hugo™ RAS system

Key Points

This research aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic ileocecal resection versus traditional surgical methods in treating Crohn's disease.
Retrospective data collection from a maintained database
Patients divided by surgical method: robotic, laparoscopic, or open
Utilized multivariable regression and propensity score matching for analysis
Robotic surgery had a conversion rate of 1.6%, significantly lower than 15.2% for laparoscopy (p = 0.001)
Robotic approach reduced the odds of conversion by 89% (adjusted OR 0.11; p = 0.027)
Showed a 16.1% reduction in 30-day readmissions (p = 0.025) compared to laparoscopy
Reduced risk of severe complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III) with p = 0.037 versus laparoscopy
Shorter length of stay compared to both laparoscopic and open methods, with statistical significance

Abstract

Abstract Background Robotic surgery is increasingly adopted in inflammatory bowel disease to address the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic ileocecal resection for Crohn’s disease (CD) using the Hugo™ RAS system against laparoscopic and open approaches. Methods Data were retrospectively collected from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing ileocecal resection for CD between January 2003 and June 2025 at a tertiary referral center. Patients were stratified by surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. Multivariable regression, 1:1 and 1:4 propensity score matching (PSM), and G-computation were utilized to compare postoperative complications, readmissions, conversion rates, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results A total of 1392 patients were included (62 robotic, 623 laparoscopic, 707 open). The robotic approach was associated with a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to laparoscopy (1.6% vs 15.2%; p = 0.001). After adjustment, robotic surgery remained independently associated with an 89% reduction in the odds of conversion (adjusted OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.02–0.77; p = 0.027). In the primary PSM analysis, the robotic group demonstrated a 16.1% absolute risk reduction in 30-day readmissions (p = 0.025) and a significantly lower risk of severe complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III) compared to laparoscopy (p = 0.037). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a statistically significant reduction in LOS for the robotic group compared to both laparoscopic (p = 0.049) and Open (p < 0.001) approaches. Adjusted operative times were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.572). Conclusion Robotic ileocecal resection using the Hugo™ RAS system is a safe and effective alternative to conventional techniques. It offers distinct clinical advantages, including marked reductions in conversion rates and hospital readmissions, as well as a shorter length of stay, without compromising operative efficiency.

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Violante et al. (Fri,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e473bd010ef96374d8f8af https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-12775-9

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Bookmark

View Full Paper