R Blanco-Colino1, E Espin-Basany2. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. ruthblancocolino@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has been proven to be an effective tool to assess anastomotic perfusion. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate its efficacy in reducing the anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after colorectal surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, WOS, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2017 for studies comparing fluorescence imaging with standard care. ClinicalTrials.gov register was searched for ongoing trials. The primary outcome measure was AL rate with at least 1 month of follow-up. ROBINS-I tool was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) from the original data. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and two patients from 5 non-randomized studies were included. Fluorescence imaging significantly reduced the AL rate in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (OR 0.34; CI 0.16-0.74; p = 0.006). Low AL rates were shown in rectal cancer surgery (ICG 1.1% vs non-ICG 6.1%; p = 0.02). There was no significant decrease in the AL rate when colorectal procedures for benign and malignant disease were combined. To date, there are no published randomized control trials (RCTs) on this subject, though 3 ongoing RCTs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: ICG fluorescence imaging seems to reduce AL rates following colorectal surgery for cancer. However, the inherent bias of the non-randomized studies included, and their differences in AL definition and diagnosis could have influenced results. Large well-designed RCTs are needed to provide evidence for its routine use in colorectal surgery.
BACKGROUND:Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has been proven to be an effective tool to assess anastomotic perfusion. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate its efficacy in reducing the anastomotic leakage (AL) rate after colorectal surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, WOS, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2017 for studies comparing fluorescence imaging with standard care. ClinicalTrials.gov register was searched for ongoing trials. The primary outcome measure was AL rate with at least 1 month of follow-up. ROBINS-I tool was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) from the original data. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and two patients from 5 non-randomized studies were included. Fluorescence imaging significantly reduced the AL rate in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (OR 0.34; CI 0.16-0.74; p = 0.006). Low AL rates were shown in rectal cancer surgery (ICG 1.1% vs non-ICG 6.1%; p = 0.02). There was no significant decrease in the AL rate when colorectal procedures for benign and malignant disease were combined. To date, there are no published randomized control trials (RCTs) on this subject, though 3 ongoing RCTs were identified. CONCLUSIONS:ICG fluorescence imaging seems to reduce AL rates following colorectal surgery for cancer. However, the inherent bias of the non-randomized studies included, and their differences in AL definition and diagnosis could have influenced results. Large well-designed RCTs are needed to provide evidence for its routine use in colorectal surgery.
Authors: A Karliczek; D A Benaron; P C Baas; C J Zeebregts; A van der Stoel; T Wiggers; J T M Plukker; G M van Dam Journal: Eur Surg Res Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 1.745
Authors: Mehraneh D Jafari; Steven D Wexner; Joseph E Martz; Elisabeth C McLemore; David A Margolin; Danny A Sherwinter; Sang W Lee; Anthony J Senagore; Michael J Phelan; Michael J Stamos Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Frederic Ris; Roel Hompes; Chris Cunningham; Ian Lindsey; Richard Guy; Oliver Jones; Bruce George; Ronan A Cahill; Neil J Mortensen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Andrea Picchetto; Barbara Seeliger; Stefania La Rocca; Manuel Barberio; Giancarlo D'Ambrosio; Jacques Marescaux; Michele Diana Journal: Chirurg Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: S Hayami; K Matsuda; H Iwamoto; M Ueno; M Kawai; S Hirono; K Okada; M Miyazawa; K Tamura; Y Mitani; Y Kitahata; Y Mizumoto; Hiroki Yamaue Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Lea A Moukarzel; Maureen E Byrne; Stephanie Leiva; Michelle Wu; Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Ginger Gardner; Mario M Leitao; Vance A Broach; Dennis S Chi; Kara Long Roche; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 5.482