SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Comparing ICG-Guided vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Lymphadenectomy in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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.
- Robotic total gastrectomy: Key operative maneuvers and optimal use of the fourth arm.Surgical oncology insight · 2026Article
- [Robotic gastrectomy: Research progress and practical challenges].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with surgical intervention being a critical aspect of treatment. Lymphadenectomy plays a significant role in managing gastric cancer, with the extent of lymph node removal often influencing survival outcomes. Recent advancements in laparoscopic surgery have introduced the use of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence guidance to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of lymphadenectomy. However, the comparative efficacy of ICG-guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy versus conventional techniques remains a topic of ongoing investigation.
aimThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and surgical outcomes of ICG-guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in patients with gastric cancer.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements, was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD420251039604). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: April 22, 2025) and quality assessment was performed using the ROB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.
resultsA total of 3996 patients from ten studies were analyzed, with 1870 undergoing ICG-guided surgery and 2126 in the non-ICG group. ICG use was associated with significantly improved 1-year (RR = 1.04) and 2-year (RR = 1.09) overall survival, and a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 6.00). While intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced with ICG (MD = - 14.44 mL), no significant differences were observed in metastatic lymph node count, postoperative complications, operative time, or hospital stay.
conclusionsICG-guided surgery in gastric cancer is associated with improved short- and mid-term overall survival and enhanced lymph node retrieval. It also significantly reduces intraoperative blood loss without increasing postoperative complications, operative time, or hospital stay. These findings support the clinical value of ICG in improving surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41085854What 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.