Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286194›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020

Best practices in near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (NIRF/ICG)-guided robotic urologic surgery: a systematic review-based expert consensus.

Giovanni E Cacciamani, A Shakir, A Tafuri, K Gill, J Han, N Ahmadi, P A Hueber, M Gallucci, G Simone, R Campi and 14 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence in robotic hepatobiliary surgery: A systematic review.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Giovanni E CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu.
A ShakirUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
A TafuriUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
K GillUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J HanUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
N AhmadiUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
P A HueberUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M GallucciDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
G SimoneDepartment of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
R CampiDepartment of Urologic Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
G VignoliniDepartment of Urologic Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
W C HuangDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, USA.
J TaylorDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, USA.
E BecherDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, USA.
F W B Van LeeuwenDepartment of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H G Van Der PoelDepartment of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L P VeletDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
A K HemalDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
A BredaFundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
R AutorinoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
R SoteloUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M AronUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M M DesaiUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
A L De Castro AbreuUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of the near-infrared (NIRF) technology with indocyanine green (ICG) in robotic urologic surgery by performing a systematic literature review and to provide evidence-based expert recommendations on best practices in this field.

methodsAll English language publications on NIRF/ICG-guided robotic urologic procedures were evaluated. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement to evaluate PubMed

resultsOur electronic search identified a total of 576 papers. Of these, 36 studies included in the present systematic review reporting the use of NIRF/ICG in robotic partial nephrectomy (n = 13), robotic radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy (n = 7), robotic ureteral re-implantation and reconstruction (n = 5), robotic adrenalectomy (n = 4), robotic radical cystectomy (n = 3), penectomy and robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 2), robotic simple prostatectomy (n = 1), robotic kidney transplantation (n = 1) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (n = 1).

conclusionNIRF/ICG technology has now emerged as a safe, feasible and useful tool that may facilitate urologic robotic surgery. It has been shown to improve the identification of key anatomical landmarks and pathological structures for oncological and non-oncological procedures. Level of evidence is predominantly low. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed, especially in assessing the quality of the nodal dissection and the feasibility of the identification of sentinel nodes and the impact of these novel technologies on long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Coloring AgentsIndocyanine GreenOptical ImagingConsensusHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgery, Computer-AssistedUrologic Surgical ProceduresColoring AgentsIndocyanine GreenFirefly: robotic surgeryICGIndocyanine greenLymphadenectomyNear-infrared fluorescenceNIRFRobotic adrenalectomyRobotic partial nephrectomyRobotic radical cystectomyRobotic radical prostatectomyUrology

Identifiers

PMID31286194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.