Robotic vs laparoscopic ileocolic resection: leak rate

What is known

• The two-center RICA vs LECA cohort (n=239, 29% robotic) found no difference in 30-day postoperative complications, with longer operative time robotically. ¹
• The single-center robotic intracorporeal series reported no leaks and comparable safety/feasibility, but the authors explicitly call for prospective study rather than claiming superiority. ²
• A 2025 meta-analysis/systematic review compares robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileocolic resection, but its included studies are the same small retrospective cohorts. ³

What is unknown / caveats

• All comparative data are retrospective cohorts with modest robotic sample sizes and no RCT
• The meta-analysis pools the same underpowered studies, so it cannot resolve leak-rate differences
• 'no leaks' in the robotic series reflects small n, not demonstrated superiority
• No retrieved study is powered to detect a leak-rate difference, so the question of true superiority remains open.

References

1. [No authors listed]. Ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease: robotic intracorporeal compared to laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(5):2157-2166. PMID: 37264221.

2. Aydinli HH, Anderson M, Hambrecht A, Bernstein MA, Grucela AL. Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(3):465-472. PMID: 32725327.

3. [No authors listed]. The outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. 2025;29(1):88. PMID: 40138014.

For educational use only, not a substitute for clinical judgement or medical advice. Consult qualified clinicians for diagnosis and treatment decisions. This tool may contain errors; use the flag button below to report inaccurate or harmful content.

Draft, generated by the IBDology RAG and not yet clinician-reviewed. Answers are grounded in the retrieved literature listed above; a high faithfulness score means the answer matches its sources, not that the sources are correct.