Trial reportScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of indocyanine green dosages for optimal fluorescence imaging in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer vision augmented indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescence (ICG-NIRF) signal-to-background ratio (SBR) for identification of extrahepatic biliary structures in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Architecture-Dependent Stability, Cellular Uptake, and Redox Modulation of Poly(p-Coumaric Acid) Hybrid Nanoparticles for Ovarian Carcinoma Intervention.ACS nano medicine · 2026Article
- Intraoperative biliary anatomy visualization using indocyanine green fluorescence micro-dosing: a quantitative preclinical study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Traumatic Ruptured Hepatic Cyst Managed by Laparoscopic Fenestration Assisted With Indocyanine Green (ICG) Fluorescence: A Case Report.Case reports in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of different doses of Indocyanine Green (ICG) for fluorescence imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, specifically between 0.5 to 3 h, to determine the optimal dose that would enhance clinical practice. A total of 80 patients with benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled fluorescence-guided laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly assigned to four groups based on the dose of ICG administered (n = 20 each): 0.25 mg, 0.50 mg, 1.00 mg, and 2.50 mg. Key clinical data were collected during the perioperative period, focusing on the delineation of the liver, identification of the cystic duct-common bile duct junction, and fluorescence intensity contrast analysis. The effectiveness of extrahepatic bile duct visualization was evaluated subjectively by three experienced hepatobiliary surgeons via surgical videos and images, categorized as "excellent," "good," or "poor." Successful fluorescence imaging was achieved in all patients without the requiring conversion to open surgery. Significant differences were observed among the four groups in several metrics: intraoperative blood loss, bile duct identification time, fluorescence intensity contrast values, and the number of cases rated "excellent" by the surgeons (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed for the remaining statistical indicators (P > 0.05). The findings based on the data suggest that a dose of 0.25 mg ICG within the 0.5-3 h window is optimal, yielding the highest fluorescence contrast between the extrahepatic bile duct and liver while garnering the best subjective evaluations. This study provides robust evidence to support the clinical application of ICG in surgical imaging, emphasizing its utility in clinical practice.
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.