ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Initial experience of ureteric visualization using methylene blue during laparoscopy for gynecological surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a severe surgical complication, with a highest incidence of 1.5% in gynecological surgeries. The purpose of this report is to document our initial experience with using methylene blue (MB) to label the ureter in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries and to explore its effectiveness and safety. This is also a novel description of simultaneously visualizing ureteral MB fluorescence and sentinel lymph nodes (SLN's) Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence using the same camera. Methods: This study included patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgeries, with the same surgeon performing all cases. During the early stages of each surgery, rapid intravenous infusion of MB was administered. For cases requiring SLN imaging, we also injected ICG solution into the cervix. Assessment of the included cases was conducted both intraoperatively and postoperatively. The group that had MB fluorescence (Group A) was compared to a control group that did not have it (Group B). Results: A total of 25 patients (Group A) received MB during surgery, demonstrating 45 ureters clearly, with an imaging success rate of 90%. Continuous and clearer fluorescence imaging was achieved in cases with ureteral hydronephrosis. In most patients, ureteral fluorescence was visible 15-20 min after intravenous infusion of MB, and 64% still exhibited fluorescence at the end of the surgery. In patients who had both ICG and MB, dual fluorescence imaging was achieved clearly. Among the included cases, there were no iatrogenic ureteral injuries (0%), which we observed to be lower than in patients who did not receive MB (1.3%). The rate of adverse events was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Using MB fluorescence is an effective and safe method of visualizing the ureters during gynecological surgeries, and can diminish iatrogenic ureteral injury without increased associated adverse events. It therefore may offer promising prospects for clinical application.
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.