ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Quantification of fluorescence angiography for visceral perfusion assessment: measuring agreement between two software algorithms.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Quantitative assessment of gastric tube perfusion during Ivor Lewis esophagectomy using indocyanine-green: results from the prospective interventional trial SPY Q-ICG PAS study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- SPY-QP-guided perfusion assessment to prevent esophagogastric anastomotic leakage: protocol for the SPYMIE study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Cross-software comparison shows strong agreement for quantitative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in reconstructive surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Beyond fluorescence intensity: a Minimum acquisition and reporting standard and emerging technologies for colorectal indocyanine green fluorescence angiography studies.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography on esophagogastric anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) may reduce perfusion-related complications of gastrointestinal anastomosis. Software implementations for quantifying ICG-FA are emerging to overcome a subjective interpretation of the technology. Comparison between quantification algorithms is needed to judge its external validity. This study aimed to measure the agreement for visceral perfusion assessment between two independently developed quantification software implementations.
methodsThis retrospective cohort analysis included standardized ICG-FA video recordings of patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction between August 2020 until February 2022. Recordings were analyzed by two quantification software implementations: AMS and CPH. The quantitative parameter used to measure visceral perfusion was the normalized maximum slope derived from fluorescence time curves. The agreement between AMS and CPH was evaluated in a Bland-Altman analysis. The relation between the intraoperative measurement of perfusion and the incidence of anastomotic leakage was determined for both software implementations.
resultsSeventy pre-anastomosis ICG-FA recordings were included in the study. The Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean relative difference of + 58.2% in the measurement of the normalized maximum slope when comparing the AMS software to CPH. The agreement between AMS and CPH deteriorated as the magnitude of the measured values increased, revealing a proportional (linear) bias (R
conclusionThis is the first study to demonstrate technical differences in software implementations that can lead to discrepancies in ICG-FA quantification in human clinical cases. The possible variation among software-based quantification methods should be considered when interpreting studies that report quantitative ICG-FA parameters and derived thresholds, as there may be a limited external validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.