ArticleJPRAS open2024
Advancing indocyanine green fluorescence flap perfusion assessment via near infrared signal quantification.
Article in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peri-knee soft tissue reconstruction using retrograde pedicled anterolateral thigh flaps with selective vascular supercharging: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Quantitative Venous Outflow Assessment in Reconstructive Flaps Using Indocyanine Green Angiography: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Reconstruction of the Vulva and Perineum-Comparison of Surgical Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGFA) perfusion assessment has been demonstrated to reduce complications in reconstructive surgery. This study sought to advance ICGFA flap perfusion assessment via quantification methodologies. Method: Patients undergoing pedicled and free flap reconstruction were subjected to intraoperative ICGFA flap perfusion assessment using either an open or endoscopic system. Patient demographics, clinical impact of ICGFA and outcomes were documented. From the ICGFA recordings, fluorescence signal quality, as well as inflow/outflow milestones for the flap and surrounding (control) tissue were computationally quantified Results: Fifteen patients underwent ICGFA assessment at reconstruction (8 head and neck, 6 breast and 1 perineum) including 10 free and 5 pedicled flaps. Visual ICGFA interpretation altered on-table management in 33.3% of cases, with flap edges trimmed in 4 and a re-anastomosis in 1 patient. One patient suffered post-operative flap dehiscence. Laparoscopic camera use proved feasible but recorded a lower quality signal than the open system.Using established and novel metrics, objective ICGFA signal ROI quantification permitted perfusion comparisons between the flap and surrounding tissue. Full flap assessment feasibility was demonstrated by computing all pixels and subsequent outputs summarisation as heatmaps. Conclusion: This trial demonstrated the feasibility and potential for ICGFA with operator based and quantitative flap perfusion assessment across several reconstructive applications. Further development and implementation of these computational methods requires technique and device standardisation.
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.