Crohn's disease — surgical management: resection versus biologics, anastomosis, strictureplasty, perianal disease and postoperative prevention

A 24-year-old woman arrives with six months of right iliac fossa pain, weight loss and an inflammatory ileal stricture that has failed steroids and thiopurines. A 31-year-old smoker returns six months after ileocolic resection with aphthous ulcers scattered across the neoterminal ileum. A 28-year-old man presents with a discharging perianal fistula and an undrained intersphincteric abscess. One disease label — "Crohn's disease" — covers a resectable ileal segment, a predictable anastomotic recurrence and a fistula that needs drainage plus biologics together, and each demands a different operation, or none. This page is the framework that sorts the three — with the numbers that govern each decision.^[12][21][30]

Definition — transmural disease and the Montreal frame

Crohn's disease is typically characterized by transmural inflammation of the intestine and could affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract from mouth to perianal area — the single sentence that separates it from ulcerative colitis in every viva opening.^[1] The Montreal classification is based on the age at diagnosis (under 16, 17 to 40, over 40), disease location (ileal, colonic, ileocolonic) and the disease behavior (nonstricturing and nonpenetrating, stricturing, penetrating).^[1] In terms of distribution of the disease, 25% of the patients have colitis only, 25% have ileitis only and 50% have ileocolitis — so the ileocaecal region the surgeon resects most is also the commonest address of the disease.^[1]

Behaviour, not anatomy alone, drives the surgical classification: stricturing disease obstructs, penetrating disease fistulises, and location modifies the tempo — patients with isolated colonic disease were slower to develop strictures or internal penetrating disease and to require surgery.^[8] Behaviour is not fixed either: a change in behaviour was observed in 15.9% of patients, and 24.1% were submitted to abdominal surgery in the same cohort — so today's inflammatory ileitis is tomorrow's fibrostenosis, and the consent conversation says so.^[9]

The guideline scope is explicit about what surgery owns: the ECCO surgical papers address surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery, with technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations — the 2024 update and its 2020 predecessor together framing every resection, strictureplasty and perianal decision below.^[2][3]

Epidemiology — who is resected, and how often

Anchor the burden three ways. In the United States it is currently estimated that about 1.5 million people suffer from inflammatory bowel disease.^[1] Up to 60% of patients with Crohn's disease need intestinal resection within the first 10 years of diagnosis, and postoperative recurrence is common.^[4] In a 1,115-patient cohort, 49.3% required at least one intestinal surgery — so roughly every second Crohn's patient the examiner describes has met, or will meet, a surgeon.^[5]

Pathophysiology — why resection is not cure

Transmural inflammation progresses to fibrostenosis or penetration, and resection removes the segment, not the disease: in randomised controlled trials, clinical recurrence in the first year after surgery occurred in 10 to 38% of patients, whereas endoscopic recurrence in the first year was reported in 35 to 85% of patients.^[6] In population-based studies, approximately half of patients experienced clinical recurrence at 10 years — so the anastomosis is a surveillance site from the day it is constructed.^[6]

The recurrence risk factors the examiner listens for are smoking, young age and a perforating disease behavior, with endoscopic evaluation of the neoterminal ileum at 6 to 12 months after surgery providing the information that predicts the further clinical course and guides adjustment of medical therapy.^[7] Smoking is the strongest risk factor for postoperative recurrence, increasing twofold the risk of clinical recurrence — and prior intestinal resection, penetrating behaviour, perianal disease and extensive bowel disease beyond 50 cm are the established co-factors.^[6]

The mesentery's role is the live hypothesis behind the newest anastomosis: excluding mesentery at the anastomosis is tested as surgical prevention of recurrence in the SuPREMe-CD randomised trial, and extended versus limited mesenteric excision is compared across the network evidence — a hypothesis with randomised data, not yet a standard.^[18][20]

Clinical presentation and examination

Expect three surgical faces. The fibrostenotic patient presents with colicky pain, obstructive episodes and weight loss on a background of ileal or ileocolonic disease — the stricturing behaviour of the Montreal frame, in the distribution (ileitis alone or ileocolitis) that covers three-quarters of patients.^[1] The penetrating patient presents with a mass, abscess or fistula — the penetrating behaviour that, with perianal disease and prior resection, marks established recurrence risk.^[6] The perianal patient presents with discharge, pain and sepsis — fistulising anorectal disease whose healing numbers belong to combined surgical drainage and infliximab, not to either alone.^[29][31]

Examine the perianal patient for sepsis first and anatomy second: inspection and palpation under anaesthetic define the fistula against the abscess, because additional surgical intervention in combined perianal practice is seton drainage of fistulas and abscess drainage — drainage is the surgical half of every healing figure quoted below.^[30] Growth failure, anaemia and hypoalbuminaemia argue for nutrition and timing, not for delay without a plan: with 35 to 85% endoscopic recurrence inside a year, the postoperative window is for surveillance, not reassurance.^[6]

Bedside assessment and triage — risk-stratify from day one

Resuscitate, image and stratify simultaneously — then sort tonight's problem from this year's plan. An abdominal abscess changes the resection pathway outright: the LIR!C population excluded abdominal abscesses and diseased terminal ileum beyond 40 cm, so the abscessed or extensively diseased patient is not the straightforward resect-and-join candidate.^[12] Perianal sepsis goes to theatre for drainage under anaesthetic with seton regardless of the luminal plan — seton drainage of fistulas and abscess drainage was performed in 45% of combined-therapy patients within a year, which is how often drainage proves necessary.^[30]

Risk-stratify every resected patient before discharge, because the strata decide prophylaxis below. Active smoking after surgery carries an odds ratio of 3.01 for endoscopic recurrence, Montreal A3 an odds ratio of 3.05, and previous bowel resections an odds ratio of 2.58 — and patients with any combination of three or more risk factors show odds ratios of 4.87 on ECCO-defined and 3.16 on BSG-defined factors.^[11] For surgical recurrence specifically, a family history of inflammatory bowel disease (hazard ratio 2.24) and smoking at the time of initial ileocolic resection (hazard ratio 2.08) increase the risk of a second ileocolic resection, while postoperative immunomodulators (hazard ratio 0.40) decrease it.^[10] Demand smoking cessation, nutritional repletion and abscess control before elective resection — quitting at or before the first resection beats continued smoking on second-resection risk, and the numbers are in the prevention section.^[5]

Monitoring, scores and decision tools

State the monitoring default without hedging: an endoscopic evaluation of the neoterminal ileum 6 to 12 months after surgery provides relevant information predicting the further clinical course and can be used as a guide to adjust medical therapy.^[7] The POCER design operationalises exactly this — colonoscopy at 6 months with treatment step-up for endoscopic recurrence — against no routine colonoscopy.^[21] No symptom score replaces the scope: with endoscopic recurrence at 35 to 85% against clinical recurrence at 10 to 38% in year one, lesions precede symptoms by design, and therapy follows the lens, not the questionnaire.^[6]

Reproduce the Rutgeerts logic the trials actually use. The step-up threshold is a Rutgeerts score of i2 or more at 6 months — for endoscopic recurrence at that grade, patients stepped up to thiopurine, fortnightly adalimumab with thiopurine, or weekly adalimumab.^[21] Severe recurrence is Rutgeerts i3 or more — the grade at which SuPREMe-CD counted 13.8% after Kono-S against 34.8% after conventional anastomosis.^[18] The modified score splits i2 into i2a, lesions confined to the anastomosis, and i2b, more than five aphthous ulcers in the neoterminal ileum with normal intervening mucosa, with or without anastomotic lesions — and the split does not change management: no significant difference was observed in time to clinical recurrence (p = 0.16) or surgical recurrence (p = 0.87), and the rate of clinical recurrence is not different in i2a and i2b patients, so the same therapeutic strategy is used in all patients classified i2 whatever the location of recurrence.^[27][28]

Quote the score-comparison numbers: the week-76 Rutgeerts score predicted clinical recurrence by week 104 with fair accuracy (area under the curve 0.74), and patients with a week-76 MM-SES-CD total score of 26 or more were 4.41 times more likely to have clinical recurrence by week 104 than those below 26.^[26] Apply the risk-factor count at the bedside: two or more clinical risk factors including smoking raise endoscopic-recurrence odds (odds ratio 2.8), and three or more factors raise them further (odds ratios 4.87 and 3.16) — count, then choose prophylaxis.^[21][11]

^{[21] [27] [26] [11]}

Ileocaecal resection versus infliximab — the LIR!C question

Deliver the design first: adults with non-stricturing, ileocaecal Crohn's disease, in whom conventional therapy had failed, were randomly allocated 1:1 to laparoscopic resection or infliximab — and the eligible had not responded to at least 3 months of conventional therapy with glucocorticosteroids, thiopurines or methotrexate, while diseased terminal ileum beyond 40 cm or abdominal abscesses excluded.^[12] At 12 months the mean IBDQ score was 178.1 in the resection group versus 172.0 in the infliximab group (mean difference 6.1 points, p = 0.25) — no significant quality-of-life difference at one year.^[12]

Give the long-term follow-up: 134 of 143 patients followed, 69 resection and 65 infliximab, median 63.5 months — in the resection group 26% started anti-TNF therapy and none required a second resection, while in the infliximab group 48% had a Crohn's-related resection and the rest maintained, switched or escalated anti-TNF therapy.^[13] Duration of treatment effect was similar — median time without additional Crohn's-related treatment 33.0 months after resection versus 34.0 months after infliximab (p = 0.52).^[13]

Quote the 10-year answer: therapy-free remission 35.8% after resection versus 13.2% after infliximab (difference 22.6%, p = 0.0038), while overall 10-year clinical remission was similar (36.5% versus 28.4%, hazard ratio 0.79, p = 0.27) — and the estimated 10-year clinical remission for a 20-year-old was 54% with resection versus 24% with infliximab.^[14] Price it: mean total direct healthcare costs per patient at 1 year were lower after resection (mean difference minus 8,931 euros), with probability 0.96 of resection being cost-effective at zero willingness to pay per QALY or per IBDQ point.^[15]

Close with the consent line: the young patient with short-segment ileocaecal disease failing conventional therapy, without abscess and with acceptable bowel length, is the resection candidate — resection now buys a one-in-three chance of a decade without therapy, infliximab now buys equivalent long-run remission at higher cost and a near-half chance of later resection.^[14][13][15]

Operative technique — laparoscopy, Kono-S, mesentery

State the laparoscopic-versus-open evidence: median operating time was longer laparoscopically (115 versus 90 minutes), hospital stay shorter (5 versus 7 days), 30-day postoperative morbidity lower (10% versus 33%), and median 3-month overall costs lower (6,412 versus 8,196 euros).^[16] Long-term, resection of recurrent disease was necessary in 2 of 29 versus 3 of 26 patients (risk difference 5 per cent) — no recurrence penalty — while body image and cosmesis scores were significantly higher after laparoscopy, and open surgery is more likely to produce incisional hernia and obstruction.^[17]

Present the SuPREMe-CD numbers for Kono-S versus conventional stapled side-to-side: endoscopic recurrence at 6 months 22.2% versus 62.8% (odds ratio 5.91); severe recurrence (Rutgeerts i3 or more) 13.8% versus 34.8% (odds ratio 3.32); clinical recurrence 8% versus 18% at 12 months (p = 0.2, not significant) and 18% versus 30.2% at 24 months (odds ratio 3.47); surgical recurrence 0% versus 4.6% at 24 months (p = 0.3, not significant) — with the Kono-S anastomosis the only variable significantly associated with reduced endoscopic recurrence (odds ratio 0.19).^[18]

Quality of life favours the mesentery-excluding join where measured: bowel-symptom scores 56.3 versus 50.7 (p = 0.002) and social-function scores 26.5 versus 23.5 (p = 0.02) for Kono-S over conventional — though the mean total IBDQ score did not differ significantly (163.8 versus 155.1, p = 0.11).^[19] The network evidence adds the caution: statistically significant reduction in surgical recurrence with Kono-S over other anastomoses (odds ratio 0.07) but not with extended over limited mesenteric excision — and no difference in endoscopic recurrence in any group.^[20] So the fellowship answer is Kono-S lowers measured recurrence where randomised, extended mesenteric excision remains unproven, and the mesentery stays in the hypothesis column.^[18][20]

Strictureplasty — bowel conservation

Give the indications as the bowel-length rule: long-segment, multiple or recurrent strictures, previous resections and short-bowel risk favour strictureplasty over further resection — because 506 patients underwent 1,825 strictureplasties with minimal morbidity and zero mortality, and bowel conserved early is bowel available late.^[35] Compare against resection honestly: patients undergoing strictureplasty alone had a lower but non-significant risk of postoperative complications than resection (odds ratio 0.60, p = 0.13), while surgical recurrence after strictureplasty was more likely than after resection without reaching significance (odds ratio 1.36, p = 0.09).^[33] The Oxford series prices the reoperation risk directly: 5-year reoperation for recurrent obstruction was 22% for resection alone, 30% for strictureplasty alone and 42% for strictureplasty with resection (p = 0.038) — and young age was a risk factor for surgical recurrence (p = 0.006).^[32]

Quote the biologic-era long-term numbers: site-specific recurrence was 12.2% at 5 years and 25.7% at 10 years — with the 10-year rate significantly higher for strictureplasties in the terminal ileum (30.9%) than the ileum (21.8%) or jejunum (8.4%).^[34] On technique, the meta-analysis favours Finney over Heineke-Mikulicz for durability: the proportion requiring additional surgery decreased when a Finney strictureplasty was used (p = 0.008).^[35] Counsel the young patient with extensive jejunoileal disease plainly: repeat resections spend bowel length that strictureplasty conserves, the terminal ileum recurs most, and young age itself predicts reoperation — so the first operation should already be the bowel-conserving one.^[34][32]

Perianal fistulising disease — combined therapy

State the combined-therapy principle: examination under anaesthetic with seton drainage plus anti-TNF, each half doing what the other cannot — drainage controls sepsis, the biologic closes the track. Seton plus infliximab with maintenance immunosuppression healed completely in 14 of 21 perianal fistulas (67%) at mean 9 months — against rectovaginal disease, where complete response occurred in only one of eight, with five partial and two no response.^[29] The tertiary-centre series concurs: complete fistula closure in 38.3% with partial response in 51.5% over one year — while additional surgical intervention (seton drainage of fistulas and abscess drainage) was performed in 45% of patients in that year.^[30]

Price continuation: after the biological therapy was discontinued, recurrence of fistulas could be detected in every second patient — so stopping the drug is stopping the healing.^[30] The 2024 meta-analysis positions combined therapy precisely: fistula response (relative risk 1.10, p = 0.28) and healing (relative risk 1.06, p = 0.58) did not differ significantly against anti-TNF alone — but combined therapy gave significantly higher response (relative risk 1.25, p less than 0.001) and healing (relative risk 1.17, p = 0.05) than surgical intervention alone.^[31] So the viva answer is drainage plus drug beats surgery alone, drug alone without drainage leaves sepsis uncontrolled, and diversion or proctectomy waits for the persistently septic or destroyed anorectum — named as escalation, not as routine.^[31][30]

Postoperative prevention — POCER, TOPPIC, PREVENT and beyond

Walk the POCER strategy first: patients randomised to colonoscopy at 6 months (active care) or no colonoscopy (standard care) — with step-up to thiopurine, fortnightly adalimumab with thiopurine, or weekly adalimumab for endoscopic recurrence (Rutgeerts i2 or more) at 6 months.^[21] At 18 months, endoscopic recurrence occurred in 49% of the active-care group versus 67% of standard care (p = 0.03), and complete mucosal normality was maintained in 22% versus 8% (p = 0.03) — treatment by clinical risk with early colonoscopy and step-up beats conventional drug therapy alone.^[21]

Give the TOPPIC answer for mercaptopurine: 13% of the mercaptopurine group versus 23% of placebo had clinical recurrence needing rescue treatment or surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 0.54, p = 0.07; unadjusted 0.53, p = 0.046) — effective overall only at the margin, but decisive in smokers: 10% of smokers on mercaptopurine versus 46% on placebo recurred (hazard ratio 0.13), against 13% versus 16% in non-smokers (hazard ratio 0.90, interaction p = 0.018) — mercaptopurine prevents postoperative clinical recurrence in smokers.^[4]

Give the PREVENT answer for infliximab: clinical recurrence before or at week 76 in 12.9% versus 20.0% (absolute risk reduction 7.1%, p = 0.097, not significant) — but endoscopic recurrence in 30.6% versus 60.0% (absolute risk reduction 29.4%, p less than 0.001) — infliximab is not superior to placebo in preventing clinical recurrence, but it does reduce endoscopic recurrence.^[22] Adalimumab in high-risk patients adds the single-arm anchor: 13.7% clinical, 20.7% endoscopic and 36.8% morphological recurrence at one year.^[23]

Position the ladder from the pooled evidence: across 645 participants in 6 trials, anti-TNF prophylaxis beat thiopurine for endoscopic recurrence (relative risk 0.52), clinical recurrence (relative risk 0.50) and severe endoscopic recurrence (relative risk 0.41) — with previous anti-TNF exposure and penetrating behaviour marking endoscopic-recurrence risk.^[24] Vedolizumab enters via REPREVIO: against a background where half of resected patients recur endoscopically within a year, severe endoscopic recurrence occurred in 23.3% on vedolizumab versus 62.2% on placebo (difference minus 38.9%, p = 0.0004).^[25] And smoking cessation underpins either ladder: continued smokers progressed to complicated (B2/B3) disease more than quitters at diagnosis (odds ratio 2.5, p = 0.017), quitting before diagnosis still left excess risk (odds ratio 2.3, p = 0.045), and more smokers than quitters and non-smokers needed a second resection (hazard ratio 1.39, p = 0.044) — it is never too late to quit, but quitting at diagnosis beats quitting later.^[5]

Close with the allocation the examiner wants: immediate prophylaxis for the high-risk resected patient (smoker, penetrating disease, prior resection, young age — and three or more factors at odds ratios above 3); colonoscopy-guided step-up for the low-risk patient; smoking cessation for every patient on either path.^[11][21][5]

Special populations

• Young patients: growth, fertility and bowel-length conservation dominate — younger age amplifies the resection benefit (a 20-year-old's 10-year remission 54% with resection versus 24% with infliximab) and also predicts surgical recurrence after strictureplasty, so conserve bowel early and survey aggressively.^[14][32]
• Smokers: the dominant modifiable stratum — twofold clinical-recurrence risk, tripled endoscopic odds after surgery, mercaptopurine's benefit confined to smokers, and second resections concentrated in continued smokers — cessation counselling is prophylaxis, not lifestyle advice.^{[6][11][4][5]}
• Family history and multiply resected disease: family history of inflammatory bowel disease more than doubles second-resection hazard, previous resections more than double endoscopic-recurrence odds, and extensive disease beyond 50 cm is established risk — these patients get immediate prophylaxis, not watchful scoping.^[10][11][6]
• Rectovaginal and complex perianal disease: complete healing with seton plus infliximab is rare (one of eight) against two-thirds for simple perianal fistulas — set expectations, maintain drainage, and escalate deliberately rather than repeating failing combinations.^[29]
• Exam-strategy note (not a literature claim): when the viva adds pregnancy, elderly comorbidity or a low-resource setting to this stem, the scoring move is to restate which principles transfer unchanged (bowel conservation, 6-month anastomotic scope, smoking cessation, seton drainage plus anti-TNF for perianal sepsis) and which step adapts to context (drug availability, imaging modality, critical-care support) — then ask the examiner which constraint they want tested.

Evidence, guidelines and controversies — the regional picture

• International (ECCO, surgeon-inclusive): the 2020 and 2024 surgical guidelines frame preoperative optimisation, drug management before surgery and technical advice across resection, strictureplasty and perianal situations — the scaffold every answer below hangs on.^[2][3]
• RCT core: LIR!C (resection versus infliximab with 10-year follow-up), the laparoscopic-versus-open RCT with long-term cosmesis data, SuPREMe-CD (Kono-S), POCER (colonoscopy-guided step-up), TOPPIC (mercaptopurine) and PREVENT (infliximab) — six randomised answers covering the whole pathway from first resection to prevention.^{[12][16][18][21][4][22]}
• Pooled and long-term evidence: anti-TNF beats thiopurine for prophylaxis across 645 pooled participants; vedolizumab prevents severe recurrence in REPREVIO; strictureplasty meta-analyses quantify the conservation-versus-reoperation trade; the Kono-S network analysis separates anastomotic from mesenteric claims.^{[24][25][33][20]}
• Live controversies: resection-first versus biologic-first for young ileal disease (10-year therapy-free gap versus equivalent clinical remission); Kono-S as emerging standard versus conventional join (randomised endoscopic gap, non-significant surgical gap); immediate versus scope-guided prophylaxis (three-factor odds against POCER's step-up economy); and combined versus drug-alone perianal therapy (superior to surgery alone, equivalent to anti-TNF alone — with drainage non-negotiable either way).^{[14][18][11][31]}

Revision summary

Crohn's disease is transmural mouth-to-perianal inflammation — 25% colonic, 25% ileal, 50% ileocolonic — classified by Montreal age, location and behaviour, with isolated colonic disease slowest to complicate and behaviour changing in 15.9%.^[1][8][9] Up to 60% need resection within 10 years and half need at least one intestinal operation, with half recurring clinically by 10 years and up to 85% endoscopically within one year.^[4][5][6] Resect the short ileocaecal segment failing conventional therapy — equal 12-month quality of life (IBDQ 178.1 versus 172.0), 26% versus 48% later anti-TNF-or-resection crossover, 10-year therapy-free remission 35.8% versus 13.2% with similar clinical remission, amplified in the young (54% versus 24% at age 20), and cheaper (minus 8,931 euros, 0.96 cost-effective).^{[12][13][14][15]} Favour laparoscopy (longer operation, shorter stay, 10% versus 33% morbidity, better cosmesis, fewer hernias) and Kono-S (endoscopic recurrence 22.2% versus 62.8%, severe 13.8% versus 34.8%, the only significant variable at odds ratio 0.19) while extended mesenteric excision stays unproven.^{[16][17][18][20]} Conserve bowel with strictureplasty (site-specific recurrence 12.2% at 5 and 25.7% at 10 years, worst in terminal ileum at 30.9%; Finney most durable) and drain perianal sepsis with seton plus anti-TNF (67% complete healing; combined beats surgery alone, matches drug alone; stopping biologics recurs in every second patient).^{[34][35][29][31][30]} Scope every anastomosis at 6 months and step up at Rutgeerts i2 (49% versus 67% endoscopic recurrence; i2a and i2b managed identically); give mercaptopurine to smokers (10% versus 46%), infliximab for endoscopic prevention (30.6% versus 60.0%, clinical effect unproven), anti-TNF over thiopurine where prophylaxis is immediate, and cessation to everyone.^{[21][27][4][22][24][5]}

^{[4] [14] [18] [21] [4] [22]}

References35ShowHide

1. [1]Gajendran M, Loganathan P, Catinella AP, Hashash JG A comprehensive review and update on Crohn's disease. Dis Mon, 2018.PMID 28826742
2. [2]Adamina M, Minozzi S, Warusavitarne J, Buskens CJ, et al. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Crohn's Disease: Surgical Treatment. J Crohns Colitis, 2024.PMID 38878002
3. [3]Adamina M, Bonovas S, Raine T, Spinelli A, et al. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Crohn's Disease: Surgical Treatment. J Crohns Colitis, 2020.PMID 31742338
4. [4]Mowat C, Arnott I, Cahill A, Smith M, et al. Mercaptopurine versus placebo to prevent recurrence of Crohn's disease after surgical resection (TOPPIC): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016.PMID 28404197
5. [5]Lawrance IC, Murray K, Batman B, Gearry RB, et al. Crohn's disease and smoking: is it ever too late to quit? J Crohns Colitis, 2013.PMID 23790611
6. [6]Buisson A, Chevaux JB, Allen PB, Bommelaer G, et al. Review article: the natural history of postoperative Crohn's disease recurrence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2012.PMID 22313322
7. [7]D'Haens G, Rutgeerts P Postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease: pathophysiology and prevention. Inflamm Bowel Dis, 1999.PMID 10579124
8. [8]Aldhous MC, Drummond HE, Anderson N, Smith LA, et al. Does cigarette smoking influence the phenotype of Crohn's disease? Analysis using the Montreal classification. Am J Gastroenterol, 2007.PMID 17338736
9. [9]Arieira C, Cúrdia Gonçaves T, Dias de Castro F, et al. Clinical course in Crohn's disease: factors associated with behaviour change and surgery. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2018.PMID 30345845
10. [10]Unkart JT, Anderson L, Li E, Miller C, et al. Risk factors for surgical recurrence after ileocolic resection of Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum, 2008.PMID 18536967
11. [11]Joustra V, Duijvestein M, Mookhoek A, Bemelman W, et al. Natural History and Risk Stratification of Recurrent Crohn's Disease After Ileocolonic Resection: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Inflamm Bowel Dis, 2022.PMID 33783507
12. [12]Ponsioen CY, de Groof EJ, Eshuis EJ, Gardenbroek TJ, et al. Laparoscopic ileocaecal resection versus infliximab for terminal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomised controlled, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2017.PMID 28838644
13. [13]Stevens TW, Haasnoot ML, D'Haens GR, Buskens CJ, et al. Laparoscopic ileocaecal resection versus infliximab for terminal ileitis in Crohn's disease: retrospective long-term follow-up of the LIR!C trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2020.PMID 32619413
14. [14]Oldenburg L, Haanappel AEG, Ali M, Bosman C, et al. Ileocaecal resection versus infliximab for ileal Crohn's disease: retrospective 10-year follow-up of the LIR!C trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026.PMID 41724174
15. [15]de Groof EJ, Stevens TW, Eshuis EJ, Gardenbroek TJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic ileocaecal resection versus infliximab treatment of terminal ileitis in Crohn's disease: the LIR!C Trial. Gut, 2019.PMID 31233395
16. [16]Maartense S, Dunker MS, Slors JFM, Cuesta MA, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease: a randomized trial. Ann Surg, 2006.PMID 16432345
17. [17]Eshuis EJ, Slors JFM, Stokkers PCF, Sprangers MAG, et al. Long-term outcomes following laparoscopically assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Br J Surg, 2010.PMID 20175126
18. [18]Luglio G, Rispo A, Imperatore N, Giglio MC, et al. Surgical Prevention of Anastomotic Recurrence by Excluding Mesentery in Crohn's Disease: The SuPREMe-CD Study - A Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg, 2020.PMID 32675483
19. [19]Cricrì M, Tropeano FP, Rispo A, et al. Impact of Kono-S anastomosis on quality of life after ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease: an analysis from the SuPREMe-CD trial. Colorectal Dis, 2024.PMID 38881241
20. [20]Shepherd T, Shah D, Choi JDW, El-Khoury T, et al. Preventing Crohn's recurrence, Kono-S and extended mesenteric excision: network meta-analysis category. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2026.PMID 42458107
21. [21]De Cruz P, Kamm MA, Hamilton AL, Ritchie KJ, et al. Crohn's disease management after intestinal resection: a randomised trial. Lancet, 2015.PMID 25542620
22. [22]Regueiro M, Feagan BG, Zou B, Johanns J, et al. Infliximab Reduces Endoscopic, but Not Clinical, Recurrence of Crohn's Disease After Ileocolonic Resection. Gastroenterology, 2016.PMID 26946343
23. [23]Aguas M, Bastida G, Cerrillo E, et al. Adalimumab in prevention of postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease in high-risk patients. World J Gastroenterol, 2012.PMID 22969204
24. [24]Beelen EMJ, Nieboer D, Arkenbosch JHC, Regueiro MD, et al. Risk Prediction and Comparative Efficacy of Anti-TNF vs Thiopurines, for Preventing Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn's Disease: A Pooled Analysis of 6 Trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022.PMID 34687970
25. [25]D'Haens G, Taxonera C, Lopez-Sanroman A, Nos P, et al. Vedolizumab to prevent postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease (REPREVIO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2025.PMID 39571587
26. [26]Narula N, Wong ECL, Dulai PS, Marshall JK, et al. The Performance of the Rutgeerts Score, SES-CD, and MM-SES-CD for Prediction of Postoperative Clinical Recurrence in Crohn's Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis, 2023.PMID 35762666
27. [27]Rivière P, Pekow J, Hammoudi N, et al. Comparison of the Risk of Crohn's Disease Postoperative Recurrence Between Modified Rutgeerts Score i2a and i2b Categories: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. J Crohns Colitis, 2023.PMID 36124813
28. [28]Bayart P, Duveau N, Nachury M, Zerbib P, et al. Ileal or Anastomotic Location of Lesions Does Not Impact Rate of Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn's Disease Patients Classified i2 on the Rutgeerts Score. Dig Dis Sci, 2016.PMID 27401274
29. [29]Topstad DR, Panaccione R, Heine JA, Johnson DRE, et al. Combined seton placement, infliximab infusion, and maintenance immunosuppressives improve healing rate in fistulizing anorectal Crohn's disease: a single center experience. Dis Colon Rectum, 2003.PMID 12792431
30. [30]Bor R, Farkas K, Bálint A, et al. Efficacy of combined anti-TNF-alpha and surgical therapy in perianal and enterocutaneous fistulizing Crohn's disease--clinical observations from a tertiary Eastern European center. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2015.PMID 25384713
31. [31]Fung M, Farbod Y, Kankouni H, Singh S, et al. Does Combined Medical and Surgical Treatment Improve Perianal Fistula Outcomes in Patients With Crohn's Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Crohns Colitis, 2024.PMID 38491943
32. [32]Landerholm K, Reali C, Mortensen NJ, Travis SPL, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of strictureplasty for obstructive Crohn's disease. Colorectal Dis, 2020.PMID 32053253
33. [33]Reese GE, Purkayastha S, Tilney HS, von Roon A, et al. Strictureplasty vs resection in small bowel Crohn's disease: an evaluation of short-term outcomes and recurrence. Colorectal Dis, 2007.PMID 17854290
34. [34]Rottoli M, Tanzanu M, Manzo CA, Bacchi Reggiani ML, et al. Strictureplasty for Crohn's disease of the small bowel in the biologic era: long-term outcomes and risk factors for recurrence. Tech Coloproctol, 2020.PMID 32306308
35. [35]Tichansky D, Cagir B, Yoo E, Marcus SM, et al. Strictureplasty for Crohn's disease: meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum, 2000.PMID 10910235