BACKGROUND: Fluorescent imaging using indocyanine green (ICG) is an emerging technique that aids the surgeon with intraoperative decision making during upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. In this systematic review we aim to provide an overview of current practice of fluorescence imaging using ICG during esophagectomy, and to show how this technology can prevent surgical morbidity, such as anastomotic leakage, graft necrosis and chylothorax. METHODS: The PRISMA standard for systematic reviews was used. The PubMed and Embase database were searched to identify articles matching our systematic literature search. Two authors screened all included articles for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed for all included articles. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles were included in this review: 22 articles on perfusion assessment, and three on the detection of chyle fistula. Five out of 22 articles concerning perfusion assessment evaluated fluorescence signals in quantitative values. In 20 articles the pooled incidence of anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis in the ICG group was 11.10% (95% CI: 8.06-15.09%) and in eight studies the pooled change in management rate was 24.55% (95% CI: 19.16-30.88%). After change in management, the pooled incidence of anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis was 14.08% (95% CI: 6.55-27.70%). A meta-analysis showed that less anastomotic leakages and graft necrosis occur in the ICG group (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.14-0.63). Three case-reports (N=3) were identified regarding chyle fistula detection, and ICG lymphography detected the thoracic duct in all cases and the chyle fistula in one case. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence imaging using ICG is a promising and safe technology to reduce surgical morbidity after esophagectomy with continuity restoration. ICG fluorescence angiography showed a reduction in anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis. Future studies are needed to demonstrate the feasibility of ICG lymphography for chyle fistula detection.
BACKGROUND: Fluorescent imaging using indocyanine green (ICG) is an emerging technique that aids the surgeon with intraoperative decision making during upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. In this systematic review we aim to provide an overview of current practice of fluorescence imaging using ICG during esophagectomy, and to show how this technology can prevent surgical morbidity, such as anastomotic leakage, graft necrosis and chylothorax. METHODS: The PRISMA standard for systematic reviews was used. The PubMed and Embase database were searched to identify articles matching our systematic literature search. Two authors screened all included articles for eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed for all included articles. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles were included in this review: 22 articles on perfusion assessment, and three on the detection of chyle fistula. Five out of 22 articles concerning perfusion assessment evaluated fluorescence signals in quantitative values. In 20 articles the pooled incidence of anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis in the ICG group was 11.10% (95% CI: 8.06-15.09%) and in eight studies the pooled change in management rate was 24.55% (95% CI: 19.16-30.88%). After change in management, the pooled incidence of anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis was 14.08% (95% CI: 6.55-27.70%). A meta-analysis showed that less anastomotic leakages and graft necrosis occur in the ICG group (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.14-0.63). Three case-reports (N=3) were identified regarding chyle fistula detection, and ICG lymphography detected the thoracic duct in all cases and the chyle fistula in one case. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescence imaging using ICG is a promising and safe technology to reduce surgical morbidity after esophagectomy with continuity restoration. ICG fluorescence angiography showed a reduction in anastomotic leakage and graft necrosis. Future studies are needed to demonstrate the feasibility of ICG lymphography for chyle fistula detection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Indocyanine green (ICG); chyle fistula; esophagectomy; perfusion; upper gastrointestinal surgery
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Merlijn Hutteman; Floris P R Verbeek; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Henk H Hartgrink; Vincent T H B M Smit; Clemens W G M Löwik; Cornelis J H van de Velde; John V Frangioni; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E M de Groot; G M Kuiper; A van der Veen; L Fourie; L Goense; S van der Horst; J W van den Berg; R van Hillegersberg; J P Ruurda Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Fernando Dip; Luigi Boni; Michael Bouvet; Thomas Carus; Michele Diana; Jorge Falco; Geoffrey C Gurtner; Takeaki Ishizawa; Norihiro Kokudo; Emanuele Lo Menzo; Philip S Low; Jaume Masia; Derek Muehrcke; Francis A Papay; Carlo Pulitano; Sylke Schneider-Koraith; Danny Sherwinter; Giuseppe Spinoglio; Laurents Stassen; Yasuteru Urano; Alexander Vahrmeijer; Eric Vibert; Jason Warram; Steven D Wexner; Kevin White; Raul J Rosenthal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: M D Slooter; M S E Mansvelders; P R Bloemen; S S Gisbertz; W A Bemelman; P J Tanis; R Hompes; M I van Berge Henegouwen; D M de Bruin Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-03-05