Evaluation of inter-user variability in indocyanine green fluorescence angiography to assess gastric conduit perfusion in esophageal cancer surgery.
anastomotic leakage
esophageal cancer
indocyanine green
interobserver variability
near-infrared laparoscopy
perfusion angiogram
upper gastrointestinal surgery
Journal
Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
ISSN: 1442-2050
Titre abrégé: Dis Esophagus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8809160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Nov 2022
15 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
12
01
2022
revised:
21
02
2022
accepted:
14
02
2022
pubmed:
17
4
2022
medline:
18
11
2022
entrez:
16
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography (ICGFA) has been deployed to tackle malperfusion-related anastomotic complications. This study assesses variations in operator interpretation of pre-anastomotic ICGFA inflow in the gastric conduit. Utilizing an innovative online interactive multimedia platform (Mindstamp), esophageal surgeons completed a baseline opinion-practice questionnaire and proceeded to interpret, and then digitally assign, a distal transection point on 8 ICGFA videos of esophageal resections (6 Ivor Lewis, 2 McKeown). Annotations regarding gastric conduit transection by ICGFA were compared between expert users versus non-expert participants using ImageJ to delineate longitudinal distances with Shapiro Wilk and t-tests to ascertain significance. Expert versus non-expert correlation was assessed via Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Thirty participants (13 consultants, 6 ICGFA experts) completed the study in all aspects. Of these, a high majority (29 participants) stated ICGFA should be used routinely with most (21, including 5/6 experts) stating that 11-50 cases were needed for competency in interpretation. Among users, there were wide variations in dosing (0.05-3 mg/kg) and practice impact. Agreement regarding ICGFA video interpretation concerning transection level among experts was 'moderate' (ICC = 0.717) overall but 'good' (ICC = 0.871) among seven videos with Leave One Out (LOO) exclusion of the video with highest disagreement. Agreement among non-experts was moderate (ICC = 0.641) overall and in every subgroup including among consultants (ICC = 0.626). Experts choose levels that preserved more gastric conduit length versus non-experts in all but one video (P = 0.02). Considerable variability exists with ICGFA interpretation and indeed impact. Even adept users may be challenged in specific cases. Standardized training and/or computerized quantitative fluorescence may help better usage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35428892
pii: 6568917
doi: 10.1093/dote/doac016
pmc: PMC10204994
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Indocyanine Green
IX6J1063HV
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Colorectal Dis. 2021 May;23(5):1289-1290
pubmed: 33599372
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;28(1):41-52
pubmed: 24485254
Surg Endosc. 2019 Feb;33(2):384-394
pubmed: 30386983
Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Sep;64(3):752-6
pubmed: 9307469
Arch Surg. 2003 Mar;138(3):303-8
pubmed: 12611579
Br J Surg. 2021 Jan 27;108(1):5-9
pubmed: 33640921
Ann Surg. 2010 Jun;251(6):1064-9
pubmed: 20485137
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):291-298
pubmed: 29206677
Surg Endosc. 2020 Dec;34(12):5223-5233
pubmed: 32696147
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017 Jun;402(4):655-662
pubmed: 27848028
Sci Rep. 2021 May 31;11(1):11349
pubmed: 34059705
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1988-1997
pubmed: 30327913
Dis Esophagus. 2021 May 22;34(5):
pubmed: 33016305
Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Oct;94(4):1104-11; discussion 1111-3
pubmed: 22939245
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):536-41; discussion 541-2
pubmed: 15051003
Am J Surg. 1995 Jun;169(6):634-40
pubmed: 7771633
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):839-846
pubmed: 28796016
Dis Esophagus. 2022 Apr 19;35(4):
pubmed: 34378016
Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 Jan;103(1):267-273
pubmed: 27677565
Dis Esophagus. 2018 Dec 1;31(12):
pubmed: 29897432
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Aug;20(8):O226-O234
pubmed: 29751360
Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):7074-7081
pubmed: 33398567
Trials. 2015 Aug 05;16:331
pubmed: 26242177
Dis Esophagus. 2021 Jan 11;34(1):
pubmed: 32476017
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Jun;404(4):505-515
pubmed: 31055638
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019 Mar 15;11(3):250-263
pubmed: 30918597
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Mar;406(2):251-259
pubmed: 32821959
Dis Colon Rectum. 2021 Aug 1;64(8):921-922
pubmed: 33853088
Ann Surg. 2017 Nov;266(5):814-821
pubmed: 28796646
Ann Surg. 2014 Apr;259(4):700-7
pubmed: 23532109