ArticleMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Potential Pitfall in the Interpretation of Microscope-Integrated Fluorescence Angiography: The Center-Periphery Effect.
Article in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indocyanine-Green-Guided Partial Nephrectomy: A Narrative Review Addressing Protocol Heterogeneity, Perioperative Functional and Oncological Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Phantom for fluorescence uniformity and distortion assessment of near-infrared fluorescence guided surgery systems.Journal of biomedical optics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesIndocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) enables the real-time visualization of tissue perfusion. However, objective research on microscope-integrated fluorescence angiography (FA) has not been conducted before. This study aims to evaluate the fluorescence light distribution in images formed by ICG-FA in two surgical microscopes using a phantom, and to provide recommendations for their application.
methodsAn 11.8 by 6.8 cm ICG and Intralipid phantom was made to evaluate overall spatial fluorescence sensitivity in two surgical microscopes in multiple working distances (WDs) and magnification factors (MFs). The signal was quantified using a tailor-made software in Python 3.8.10.
resultsA clear center-periphery effect was present in most settings in both microscopes, with the highest peripheral fluorescence signal loss in the lowest MF: 100% in the Tivato and 83% in the Pentero. Increasing the MF improved homogeneity, where the biggest difference was seen between the first and second MF. A 30 cm WD and 3.5× MF produced the most homogeneous images suitable for free-flap surgery. Manually opening the light beam diameter also reduced the center-periphery effect.
conclusionsPeripheral signal loss in microscope-integrated ICG-FA must be considered during clinical interpretation and for the quantification of tissue perfusion. In clinical practice during reconstructive free-flap surgery, a 30 cm WD, 3.5 MF, and manually opened light beam diameter should be applied to achieve the most homogeneous image.
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.