{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015424164524421594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002570694087403599, 'mean_word_length': 5.034883720930233, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surgery in the age of biological treatment

Abstract Surgery for IBD is in constant evolution; it does not appear that the introduction of biologicals has had a major effect on the chance of a patient being operated on or not. Pouch surgery had its heydays in the 80s and 90s and has since then become less frequent, but the number of patients undergoing surgery still seem about the same from one year to the other. Likewise, there is no substantial evidence that surgery for Crohn’s disease is diminishing. There have been fears that patients on biological treatment have an increased risk of postoperative complications. The issue is not completely settled but it is likely that patients on biological treatment who come to surgery are those who do not benefit from biologicals. Thus, they are compromised in that they have an ongoing inflammation, are in bad nutritional state, and might have several other known risk factors for a complicated postoperative course. These factors and perhaps not the biologicals per se is what surgeons should consider. During the recent years, we have seen several new developments in IBD surgery; the ileorectal anastomosis is being used for ulcerative colitis and laparoscopic surgery usually resulting in a shorter hospital stay, less pain, and better cosmetics. We have also seen the introduction of robotic surgery, single incision minimal invasive surgery, transanal minimal invasive surgery, and other approaches to minimize surgical trauma. Time will show which of these innovations patients will benefit from.