Postoperative Crohn’s: What’s changed?
The concept of reusing anti-TNF therapy after surgery is gaining traction.
-
02/02/2026
-
by Doug Brunk
Even in the age of advanced medical therapy, surgery remains a fundamental part of Crohn’s disease care.
During the 2026 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of AGA and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, held in Las Vegas, Jordan Axelrad, MD, MPH, co-director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at NYU Langone Health, reviewed new data on who is most likely to relapse after surgery, which therapies may best prevent recurrence, and how postoperative monitoring is evolving.
Although biologics and small molecules have transformed Crohn’s disease management, about one in four patients still require intestinal resection at 10 years. “Recurrence can happen very quickly,” Dr. Axelrad said. “We can sometimes see histologic changes within one week after a resection.” Endoscopic recurrence is often evident within one year, before symptoms develop. Without intervention, this progression can lead to repeat surgery.
Not all patients recur, however. A nationwide cohort study that Dr. Axelrad conducted with Swedish colleagues showed that about 21% of patients with Crohn’s disease remained free of medical therapy five years after surgery. Older age and longer disease duration were associated with this lower-risk group, suggesting that some patients may be managed with careful monitoring alone.
Endoscopy remains the cornerstone of postoperative assessment, with the Rutgeerts score guiding risk stratification. Patients with i0 to i2a findings are considered in endoscopic remission, while those with i2b lesions —disease extending beyond the anastomosis — face a significantly higher risk of progression. Data from a U.S. multicenter consortium confirmed that patients with i2b disease are more likely to advance to severe recurrence, reinforcing the need for closer follow-up and earlier treatment escalation.
AGA recommendations have simplified postoperative risk categories. Lower-risk patients tend to be older, nonsmokers undergoing their first surgery with limited bowel resection. “High-risk patients are going to be younger, active smokers, and those who've had a history of surgery for their Crohn's disease,” Dr. Axelrad said. Still, he highlighted prospective data showing that recurrence rates approach 50% even among patients classified as low risk. Importantly, medical prophylaxis reduced recurrence in both low- and high-risk groups.
According to Sara Horst, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, & Nutrition and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, who moderated the session, “some data suggests high-risk patients also include those who have been on advanced therapies in the past as well as those with fistulizing or stricturing complications,” she told GI & Hepatology News.
Anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents remain the most studied option for postoperative prophylaxis. While antibiotics such as metronidazole have been used historically, many clinicians now favor biologics. Newer data suggest that vedolizumab and ustekinumab perform similarly in preventing recurrence, although patient selection is key. In one analysis conducted at two medical centers, early initiation of anti-TNF therapy — within four weeks of surgery — was associated with the lowest rates of endoscopic recurrence, giving anti-TNF agents a potential advantage when they are safe and appropriate.
The concept of reusing anti-TNF therapy after surgery is also gaining traction. According to Dr. Axelrad, patients who undergo surgery for complications such as strictures, rather than true biologic failure, may still benefit from continuing or restarting anti-TNF treatment. By contrast, he said, data show that patients with clear primary nonresponse before surgery are better candidates for switching drug classes.
“The key here is starting advanced therapy in those high-risk patients who need it,” Dr. Horst added. “Also, educating our patients on the importance of close monitoring after surgery is extremely important.”
Postoperative monitoring strategies are also expanding. A landmark trial showed that colonoscopy at six months, with treatment adjustment based on findings, reduces later recurrence. Biomarkers now play a larger role as well. Updated guidance suggests that patients at low risk, or those receiving prophylactic therapy with fecal calprotectin levels below 50 µg/g, may be able to defer the six-month colonoscopy.
According to Dr. Axelrad, intestinal ultrasound and cross-sectional imaging offer additional, non-invasive ways to detect early recurrence.
He concluded his presentation by noting that postoperative Crohn’s disease management starts before the operating room. “Early risk assessment, timely selection of prophylactic therapy, and structured monitoring can help clinicians intervene earlier — and potentially reduce the need for repeat surgery,” he said.
Dr. Axelrad disclosed that he has received consultancy fees, honorarium, or advisory board fees from several pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research grants from BioFire Diagnostics, Genentech, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Horst disclosed that she is a consultant to Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biocon. She has also received educational grants from AbbVie and Takeda.
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.