| Literature DB >> 27844236 |
S L Vlek1, D A van Dam2, S M Rubinstein3, E S M de Lange-de Klerk3, L J Schoonmade4, J B Tuynman2, W J H J Meijerink2, M Ankersmit2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Near-infrared imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) has been extensively investigated during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, methods vary between studies, especially regarding patient selection, dosage and timing. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the potential of the near-infrared imaging technique with ICG to identify biliary structures during LC.Entities:
Keywords: Biliary tract visualization; ICG; Intraoperative cholangiography; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Near-infrared imaging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27844236 PMCID: PMC5487840 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5318-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Fig. 1PRISMA—flowchart of search strategy (8 February 2016)
Study characteristics
| References | Type of study | Visualization techniques (s) | Patients | F:M | BMI (range) [SD] | Age (range) [SD] | Included indication | Conversion | Complication | Camera system | OT (range) [SD] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aoki [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 14 | 6 | 8 | – | 61 (43–72) | SCL | – | 0 | HP | – |
| Ishizawa [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 52 | 23 | 29 | 23.2 (18.2–32.9) | 59 (28–78) | SCL | – | 0 | HP | 142 (91–366) |
| Ishizawa [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI, SI | 7 | 6 | 1 | 20.4 (16.6–27.4) | – | SCL | – | – | HP | – |
| Kaneko [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI, SI (9) | 28 | 18 | 10 | 20 (18–42) | 51 (22–78) | SCL | 0 | 0 | HP | 151 (98–343) |
| Buchs [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI, SI, Rbt | 12 | 8 | 4 | 28.5 (20–39) | 47 (31–69) | SCL | 0 | 0 | DVI | 85 (57–125) |
| Buchs [ | NRCT | NIR-ICG vs. CI SI, Rbt | 44 | 31 | 13 | 27 [4.1] | 48 [ | SCL | 0 | 3/23 (ICG) 1/21 (control) | DVI | 85 [ |
| Dip [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 65 | 35 | 30 | 20 (16–40) | 42 (19–73) | SCL | – | – | KSE | 120 (30–80) |
| Schols [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 30 | 19 | 11 | 26.7 (19.7–36.8) | 53 (26–81) | SCL | 1 | 0 | KSE | – |
| Spinoglio [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI, SI, Rbt | 45 | 33 | 12 | 24.7 (19–43) | 48 (23–76) | SCL | 0 | 1 | DVI | 67 (35–110) |
| Tagaya [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI, SI (4) | 15 | 9 | 6 | (19.5–27.3) | 54 (37–69) | SCL | 0 | 0 | Os/HP | 88 (68–118) |
| Boni [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 52 | 31 | 21 | – | – | 17 SCL 35 ACC | – | 0 | KSE | 54 [ |
| Dip [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 45 | 24 | 21 | 28.4 [6.5] | 49 [14.76] | 28 SCL 17 ACC | – | 0 | KSE | 66 [ |
| Osayi [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 82 | 64 | 18 | 31.5 [8.2] | 43 [ | SCL | – | 0 | SE | 78 [ |
| Prevot [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 23 | 21 | 2 | – | 45 (18–81) | SCL | 0 | 2 | KSE | 72 (40–200) |
| Verbeek [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 14 | – | – | 25 (19–40) | 61 (26–76) | SCL | – | – | mF | – |
| Larsen [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 35 | 26 | 9 | 28 (19–38) | 48 (18–74) | 33 SCL 2 ACC | – | 0 | Os | 43 (22–135) |
| Van Dam [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 30 | 21 | 9 | 27.5 [4.3] | 50 [ | SCL | – | 3 | Os | 71 [ |
| Kono [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 108 | 49 | 59 | 23.5 (15.6–42.2) | 56 (19–92) | 102 SCL 6 ACC | – | – | HP | – |
| Dip [ | PCH | NIR-ICG, CI | 71 | 42 | 29 | 53% > 30 47% < 30 | – | 53 SCL 18 ACC | – | 0 | KSE | – |
PCH prospective cohort, RCH retrospective cohort, NRCT non-randomized controlled trial, NIR near infrared, ICG indocyanine green, CI conventional image, SI single incision, Rbt Robot, F:M female versus male ratio, BMI body mass index (kg/m2) with [SD] or (range); Age, in years with [SD] or (range), SCL symptomatic biliary disease, ACC acute cholecystitis, HP Hamamatsu photonics, DVI Da Vinci System/Intuitive, KSE Karl Storz Endoskope, Os Olympus, mF mini-Flare, SE Stryker Endoscopy
Biliary tract visualization per dosage scheme
| Study |
| Adm. timing (mins) | CD before | CD after | CBD before | CBD after | CHD before | CHD after |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biliary tract visualization with a 2.5-mg fixed dosage of ICG | ||||||||
| Ishazawa [ | 52 | 30 | 52 (100) | 52 (100) | – | – | 50 (96.2) | 52 (100) |
| Ishazawa [ | 7 | 15a | 5 (71.4) | – | – | – | 7 (100) | – |
| Buchs [ | 12 | 45 | 11 (91.7) | 12 (100) | 6 (50) | 10 (83.3) | 4 (33.3) | 8 (66.7) |
| Schols [ | 30 | 15a | 29 (96.7) | – | 25 (83.3) | – | – | – |
| Spinoglio [ | 45 | 45 | 42 (93.3) | 44 (97.8) | 41 (91.1) | 44 (97.8) | 40 (88.9) | 44 (97.8) |
| Osayi [ | 82 | 74 | 46 (56.1) | 78 (95.1) | 31 (37.8) | 63 (76.8) | 29 (35.4) | 57 (69.5) |
| Kono [ | 108 | – | 88 (81.5) | 103 (95.4) | – | 94 (87.0) | 100 (92.6) | |
| Weighted mean % (95% CI) | 86.5 (71.2–96.6) | 96.5 (93.9–98.4) | 67.3 (35.5–92.1) | 86.6 (67.1–98.0) | 76.8 (51.2–94.7) | 88.9 (73.5–98.2) | ||
| Biliary tract visualization with a 0.05-mg per kg bodyweight dosage of ICG | ||||||||
| Kaneko [ | 28 | 15 | 26 (92.8) | – | – | – | 27 (96.4) | – |
| Dip [ | 65 | 60 | 50 (76.9) | 65 (100) | 50 (76.9) | 65 (100) | – | – |
| Dip [ | 45 | 60 | 44 (97.8)b | – | 36 (80.0)b | – | 27 (60.0)b | – |
| Larsen [ | 35 | 15a | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| van Dam [ | 30 | 15a | 10 (33.3) | 29 (96.7) | 20 (66.7) | 26 (86.7) | – | – |
| Dip [ | 71 | 60 | 71 (100) | – | 62 (87.3) | – | 50 (70.4) | – |
| Weighted mean % (95% CI) | 85.2 (60.2–98.9) | 98.4 (92.4–99.9) | 78.7 (70.3–86.0) | 95.3 (73.4–99.0) | 76.6 (54.5–92.9) | |||
Visualization per dosage group. Number of biliary structure identifications n (% proportion) before and after dissection of Calot’s triangle. Timing of ICG administration is equal (average 37.3 and 37.5 min before surgery) for both groups
ICG indocyanine green, timing timing of administration, mins minutes, CD cystic duct, CBD common bile duct, CHD common hepatic duct
aICG administration after anaesthesia
bBiliary structure identification before and during dissection
Risk of bias, ROBINS-I
| ROBINS-I | Dip [ | Dip [ | Osayi [ | Prevot [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | 65 | 45 | 82 | 23 |
| Domain | ||||
| Bias due to confounding | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias in selection of participants into the study | Low | Low | Serious | Serious |
| Bias in measurement of interventions | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias due to departures from intended interventions | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias due to missing data | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias in measurement of outcomes | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Bias in selection of the reported result | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Overall | Moderate | Moderate | Serious | Serious |
Fig. 2A Meta-analysis of CD visualization. ICG versus IOC. B Meta-analysis of CBD visualization. ICG versus IOC. C Meta-analysis of CHD visualization. ICG versus IOC
GRADE summary of evidence
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence [ | Comments |
| Risk with IOC | Risk with ICG | ||||
| Cystic duct | Study population | RR 1.16 (1.00–1.35) | 430 (four observational studies) | Moderatea,b,c,d,e | Downgraded for imprecision |
| 837 per 1000 | 971 per 1000 (837–1000) | ||||
| Common bile duct | Study population | RR 1.00 (0.97–1.03) | 430 (four observational studies) | Moderatee,f | Downgraded for imprecision |
| 851 per 1000 | 851 per 1000 (826–877) | ||||
| Common hepatic duct | Study population | RR 0.76 (0.58–1.01) | 300 (three observational studies) | Lowb,e,f,g | Downgraded for imprecision and serious risk of bias |
| 793 per 1000 | 603 per 1000 (460–801) | ||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) | |||||
| CI: Confidence interval; RR: risk ratio | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||||
| High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect | |||||
| Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different | |||||
| Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited that the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect | |||||
| Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate that the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | |||||
aTest for heterogeneity p < 0.0001
b I 2 > 50%
cSmall variation in size effect
dOverlapping of CI
eTwo studies (Osayi/Prevot) include only patients with uncomplicated gallbladder disease
fCI crosses clinical decision threshold
gSelection bias