ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Colorectal surgeons' perspectives on the efficacy of intraoperative bowel perfusion technology with a focus on indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal anastomotic safety assessment using ICG fluorescence and flexible endoscopy (COLOSSEUM): a global survey of 1367 surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- AUGUR-AI: a real-time artificial intelligence interpreter for indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Hyperspectral abdominal laparoscopy with real-time quantitative tissue oxygenation imaging: a live porcine study.Frontiers in medical technology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLevel one evidence supports indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGFA) use reducing anastomotic leak rates in colorectal surgery. We surveyed surgeons exploring perceptions and factors affecting its use in daily practice and adoption as routine standard of care.
methodsValidated electronic survey distributed via the Irish Association of Coloproctology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Milan Colorectal Congress and social media.
results200 colorectal surgeons (143 consultants) responded. 147 (73.5%) surgeons already use ICGFA, with 90 (61.2%) using it routinely and 69 (46.9%) having a concomitant research interest. Strong clinical evidence base (83.5%) and protocol standardisation (78%) were overall rated most important for bowel perfusion technology with a majority of surgeons rating lack of standardisation and inter-user variability as challenges (similar between consultants and non-consultants). Lack of training and staff, reliability concerns and data security were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to non-users, and cost and operating time were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to routine users. Most surgeons (41.5%) ideated a number needed to treat (NNT) between 20 and 40 acceptable to advocate routine ICGFA use with 28% requiring a NNT < 20. Most surgeons (38.5%) indicate a per case cost savings of €250-500 supports routine use with 17% advocating it > €750.
conclusionsWith now a strong evidence base regarding clinical benefit, the survey respondents articulate remaining challenges for ICGFA as standard of care. Levels of expected benefit are largely in keeping with its reported performance.
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.