| Literature DB >> 30918597 |
Elke Van Daele1, Yves Van Nieuwenhove2, Wim Ceelen2, Christian Vanhove3, Bart P Braeckman4, Anne Hoorens5, Jurgen Van Limmen6, Oswald Varin2, Dirk Van de Putte2, Wouter Willaert2, Piet Pattyn2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After an esophagectomy, the stomach is most commonly used to restore continuity of the upper gastrointestinal tract. These esophago-gastric anastomoses are prone to serious complications such as leakage associated with high morbidity and mortality. Graft perfusion is considered to be an important predictor for anastomotic integrity. Based on the current literature we believe Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGA) is an easy assessment tool for gastric tube (GT) perfusion, and it might predict anastomotic leakage (AL). AIM: To evaluate feasibility and effectiveness of ICGA in GT perfusion assessment and as a predictor of AL.Entities:
Keywords: Anastomotic leak; Angiography; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Fluorescence; Indocyanine green; Near-infrared spectroscopy
Year: 2019 PMID: 30918597 PMCID: PMC6425328 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart of the search. ICGA: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography; GT: Gastric tube.
Demographic data and study characteristics
| Shimada et al[ | 2008-2011 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 36 GT (29/7) | 67 (49-81) | 8 CT | Open surgery | 2.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | Superdrainage (5) | 6a |
| Feasibility | 1 RT | Cervical AS | ||||||||||
| 1 CRT | ||||||||||||
| Kubota et al[ | 2010-2011 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 4 GT (3/1) | 69 (64-71) | 4 CT | Open surgery | 0.5 g/kg | After GT creation | HEMS | No | 4a |
| Feasibility | Cervical AS | |||||||||||
| Murawa et al[ | 2009-2010 (Poland) | Prospective cohort | No | 15 (13/2) | Mean 56 (54-74) | 0 | Not reported | 25 mg | After GT creation | ICView | End-to-end (4) | 6a |
| Feasibility | Cervical AS | |||||||||||
| Transhiatal | ||||||||||||
| Pacheco et al[ | 2010-2011 (United States) | Retrospective cohort | No | 11 (NR) | Mean 56 (SD ± 9) | 7 CRT | Open surgery | Not reported | After GT creation | SPY | No | 4a |
| Feasibility | - 10 ICGA good AS | Cervical AS | ||||||||||
| - 1 ICGA poor AS | Transhiatal | |||||||||||
| Kumagai et al[ | 2013 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 20 (16/4) | Mean 68 (50-79) | 0 | Open surgery | 2.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | No | 13a |
| Feasibility | Cervical AS | |||||||||||
| Rino et al[ | 2009-2013 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 33 (29/4) | Mean 68 (NR) | Not reported | Not reported | 2.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | No | 4a |
| Feasibility | Thoracic AS | |||||||||||
| Ivor Lewis | ||||||||||||
| Sarkaria et al[ | 2012-2013 (United States) | Prospective cohort | No | 30 (22/8) | 59 (37-76) | 24 CRT | RAMIE | 10 mg | Before GT creation | FireFly | No | 6a |
| Feasibility | Cervical + thoracic AS | |||||||||||
| Ivor Lewis + McKeown | ||||||||||||
| Hodari et al[ | 2011-2014 (United States) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 54 (44/10) | 65 (45-81) | 38 CRT | RAMIE | Not reported | Before anastomosis during anastomosis | FireFly | Guided AS (39) | 6b |
| Historical case control | - 39 ICGA | Thoracic AS | ||||||||||
| - 15 non ICGA | Ivor Lewis | |||||||||||
| Campbell et al[ | 2007-2013 (United States) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 90 (74/16) | 62 (22-81) | 6 CT | MIE + Hybrid + Open | 5 mg | After GT creation | SPY | Guided AS (21) | 15b |
| Historical case control | - 21 ICGA | 54 CRT | Thoracic AS | |||||||||
| - 60 non ICGA | Ivor Lewis | |||||||||||
| - 9 Doppler | ||||||||||||
| Yukaya et al[ | 2013-2014 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 27 (26/1) | 67 (40-86) | Not reported | Not reported | 0,1 mg/kg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | HEMS | No | 11a |
| Feasibility | Cervical AS | |||||||||||
| Zehetner et al[ | 2008-2011 (United States) | Prospective cohort | No | 150 (125/25) | 67 (IQR 57-74) | 67 CRT | MIE + Open Cervical AS | 2.5 mg | After GT creation | SPY | Guided AS (95) | 13b |
| Case controlled | - 6 delayed AS = excluded | Transhiatal + McKeown | ||||||||||
| - 95 ICGA good AS | ||||||||||||
| - 49 ICGA poor AS | ||||||||||||
| Koyonagi et al[ | 2014-2015 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 40 (34/6) | 68 (26-82) | 11 CT | Not reported | 2.5 or 1.25 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | No | 17b |
| Case controlled | - 25 ICGA good AS | 4 CRT | Cervical AS | |||||||||
| - 15 ICGA poor AS | ||||||||||||
| Schlottmann et al[ | NR (United States) | Prospective cohort | No | 5 (3/2) | 59 (56-70) | 1 CRT | Hybrid | 5 mg | Before anastomosis | IMAGE1 | Guided AS (5) | 8a |
| Feasibility | Thoracic AS | ICG-pulsion | - Resection (2) | |||||||||
| Ivor Lewis | ||||||||||||
| Kitagawa et al[ | 2011-2017 (Japan) | Retrospective cohort | No | 72 (57/15) | Mean 66 (SD ±7) | 60 CT | MIE + Hybrid | 5 mg | Before GT creation | HEMS | Guided AS (26) | 18b |
| Case controlled | - 26 ICGA | 2 CRT | Cervical AS | After GT creation | Guided GT (46) | |||||||
| - 46 ICGA-LMM | McKeown | - End-to-end (4) | ||||||||||
| (line marking method) | - Superdrainage (1) | |||||||||||
| Ohi et al[ | 2000-2015 (Japan) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 120 (101/19) | 68 (IQR 63-74) | 56 Not reported | Open + Hybrid | 2.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | Guided AS 60 s (59) | 15b |
| Historical case control | - 59 ICGA | Cervical AS | - End-to-end (3) | |||||||||
| - 61 non ICGA | - Supercharge/drain (1) | |||||||||||
| - Manubriotomy (5) | ||||||||||||
| Karampiris et al[ | 2010-2016 (Germany) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 90 (65/23 + 2 NR) | Mean 62 (SD ± 9) | 69 CT | Open + Hybrid | 7.5 mg | After GT creation | PinPoint | Guided AS (33) | 16b |
| Historical case control | - 35 ICGA | 25 RT | cervical + thoracic AS | - Resection (26) | ||||||||
| - 33 ICGA good AS | Thoracophrenico + McKeown | |||||||||||
| - 2 ICGA poor AS | ||||||||||||
| - 55 non ICGA | ||||||||||||
| Noma et al[ | 2010-2016 (Japan) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 285 (244/41) | Mean 65 (SD ± 8) | 129 CT | Open+ Hybrid + MIE | 12.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | Guided AS 30 s (71) | 17b |
| Historical case control | - 71 ICGA | 21 CRT | Cervical AS | - extended mobilization | ||||||||
| Case matched | - 214 non ICGA | McKeown | -Supercharge/drain (1) | |||||||||
| Dalton et al[ | 2014-2016 (United States) | Retrospective cohort | Yes | 40 (32/8) | Mean 64 (SD ± 10) | 36 Not reported | MIE | 7.5 mg | After GT creation | PinPoint | Guided AS (20) | 17b |
| Historical case control | - 20 ICGA | Thoracic AS | - Resection (6) | |||||||||
| - 20 non ICGA | Ivor Lewis | |||||||||||
| Kumagai et al[ | 2014-2017 (Japan) | Prospective cohort | No | 70 (59/11) | 71 (46-82) | Not reported | Not reported | 2.5 mg Diagnogreen | After GT creation | PDE | Guided AS 90 s (70) | 8a |
| Feasibility | Cervical AS | - Resection (35) |
Neoadjuvant treatment: CT: Chemotherapy, RT: Radiotherapy, CRT: Chemo radiation; Fluorescent imaging system: PDE: Photodynamic Eye; Hamamatsu Photonics K.K, Hamamatsu, Japan; HEMS: Hyper Eye Medical System; Mizuho Ikakogyo Co., Tokyo, Japan; ICView: Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany; SPY: SPY Imaging System, Novadaq Industries Inc., Toronto, Canada; FireFly: Firefly Fluorescence Imaging Scope, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Canada; IMAGE1: IMAGE1 STORZ professional image enhancement system; PinPoint: PinPoint system, Novadaq, Ontario, Canada; ICGA: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography; AL: Anastomotic leakage; GT: Gastric tube; MINORS: Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies; AS: Anastomotic sites; RAMIE: Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Influence of Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography on intraoperative decisions and on anastomotic leakage
| ICGA good perfused AS, | ICGA good perfused altered AS, | ICGA poor perfused AS, | |||
| Shimada et al[ | 3/36 | 2/31 | 1/5 Superdrainage | - | - |
| Kubota et al[ | 0/4 | 0/4 | - | - | - |
| Murawa et al[ | 1/15 | 1/11 | 0/4 End-to-end | - | - |
| Pacheco et al[ | 2/11 | 1/10 | - | 1/1 | - |
| Kumagai et al[ | 2/20 | 2/20 | - | - | - |
| Rino et al[ | 5/33 | 5/33 | - | - | - |
| Sarkaria et al[ | 2/30 | 2/30 | - | - | - |
| Hodari et al[ | 3/54 | 0/39 | - | - | 3/15 |
| Campbell et al[ | 12/90 | 0/21 | - | - | 12/69 |
| Yukaya et al[ | 9/27 | 9/27 | - | - | - |
| Zehetner et al[ | 24/144 | 2/95 | - | 22/49 | - |
| Koyonagi et al[ | 7/40 | 0/25 | - | 7/15 | - |
| Schlottmann et al[ | 0/5 | 0/3 | 0/2 resection | - | - |
| Kitagawa et al[ | 7/72 | 3/41 ICG-LMM | 0/5 ICG-LMM | - | - |
| 4/26 ICG | - 0/4 End-to-end | ||||
| - 0/1 Superdrainage | |||||
| Ohi et al[ | 10/120 | 0/50 | 1/9 | - | 9/61 |
| - 0/3 End-to-end | |||||
| - 1/1 Supercharge/drain | |||||
| - 0/5 Manubriotomy | |||||
| Karampiris et al[ | 13/90 | 0/7 | 1/26 Resection | 2/2 | 10/55 |
| Noma et al[ | 60/285 | 6/70 | 0/1 Supercharge/drain | - | 54/214 |
| Dalton et al[ | 3/40 | 0/14 | 2/6 Resection | - | 1/20 |
| Kumagai et al[ | 1/70 | 0/35 | 1/35 Resection | - | - |
ICGA: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.
Figure 2Anastomotic leakage rates of the entire cohort. ICGA: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography; AL: Anastomotic leakage; AS: Anastomotic sites.
Figure 3Anastomotic leakage rates of the cohort with a historical control group. ICGA: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography; AL: Anastomotic leakage; AS: Anastomotic sites.