Background/Objectives: Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are two forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which, despite their shared inflammatory nature, differ markedly in clinical presentation and disease course. In this study, we aimed to explore whether these clinical differences are also reflected at the psychological level. Specifically, we sought to delineate the personality characteristics of a sample of patients with IBD and to investigate psychological and psychopathological differences between individuals with UC and CD. Methods: We enrolled 29 (44.61%) UC patients and 36 (55.39%) CD patients, all aged 18 years or older. Each participant completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), which was subsequently scored and interpreted by trained psychologists. The MMPI-2 is a 567-item inventory with dichotomous answers (true/false), providing measures of a wide range of symptoms, beliefs, attitudes, and personality traits. Results: The total sample showed clinically significant elevations on hypochondriasis (Hs), health concerns (HEA), general health concerns (HEA₃), and physical malfunctioning (D₃) scales. UC patients had statistically significant higher scores on hypomania (p = 0.043), lack of ego mastery—defective inhibition (p = 0.006), and fears (p = 0.038) scales than CD patients. On the other hand, CD patients showed statistically significant higher scores on the Overcontrolled Hostility scale (p = 0.043). Conclusions: Both groups of patients experience emotional difficulties related to their clinical conditions, leading to an increased preoccupation with bodily symptoms and illness. These aspects appear to be accompanied by shifts in mood towards a more depressive state. Notably, the UC group demonstrates a greater degree of impairment compared to the CD group, with experiences of anxiety, stress, difficulties in emotional control, and emerging relational challenges.

Background and Objectives: Psychological resilience is increasingly recognized as a determinant of how patients respond to surgical stress, yet its role in perioperative medicine remains poorly defined. This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence on resilience in surgical populations from a psychobiological perspective, spanning conceptual models, measurement approaches, clinical correlates, biological mechanisms, and intervention strategies. Materials and Methods: This narrative review was conducted to examine psychological resilience in adult surgical populations from an integrated psychobiological and perioperative perspective. A structured literature search was performed in December 2026 using PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo, combining resilience-related constructs with surgical, perioperative, biological, and clinical outcome keywords. Eligible publications included observational, longitudinal, interventional, translational, and conceptually relevant studies addressing resilience in adult surgical settings. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively across predefined domains, including conceptualization and measurement of resilience, associations with perioperative outcomes, neuroendocrine and inflammatory mechanisms, and resilience-modulating interventions within perioperative and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) frameworks. Results: Contemporary models conceptualize resilience as a dynamic, context-dependent process supported by interacting psychological, biological, and social factors. In surgical cohorts, higher resilience is consistently associated with better patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, pain control, and emotional adjustment, and in some studies with survival and functional recovery. Preoperative depression, anxiety, maladaptive coping, and low social support converge as components of a broader “resilience profile” linked to poorer postoperative trajectories. Biologically, resilient phenotypes are characterized by more regulated hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal and autonomic responses and reduced inflammatory activation. Psychological therapies, prehabilitation programs, and selected pharmacological strategies show convergent, though heterogeneous, signals of benefit and can be interpreted as indirect resilience-enhancing interventions. Conclusions: Resilience appears to be a clinically meaningful, potentially modifiable construct that links psychosocial functioning, biological vulnerability, and postoperative outcomes. Incorporating resilience assessment into preoperative risk stratification and systematically embedding resilience-building strategies within perioperative and ERAS pathways may support more personalized, psychologically informed surgical care. Prospective, multidomain studies are needed to validate measurement tools, clarify mechanisms, and test resilience-targeted interventions in surgical populations.