ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography in Preventing Anastomotic Leakage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Delayed fluorescence on indocyanine green angiography reflects impaired red blood cell perfusion: implications for intraoperative perfusion assessment in colorectal surgery.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Emergency Surgery and the Risk of Anastomotic Leakage After Colorectal Resection with Primary Anastomosis for Benign and Malignant Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Deep impact analysis of surgical strategy changes guided by indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications after colorectal surgery, contributing to increased postoperative illness, extended hospitalisation, and higher mortality. Intra-operative evaluation of bowel perfusion with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) has emerged as a promising technique to reduce this risk, but randomised evidence remains limited. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Excerpta Medica database (Embase) via Ovid, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) via Ovid, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICG-FA to conventional visual assessment during elective colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome assessed was AL. Subgroup analyses were performed for left- and right-sided resections. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs involving 3,887 patients showed that ICG-FA significantly reduced anastomotic leak rates compared to standard visual assessment. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p = 0.003), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The estimated number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one leak was 22. Subgroup analysis revealed a greater effect in left-sided resections (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46-0.75; p = 0.002; NNT = 18), with no significant benefit seen in right-sided cases (OR: 0.83; p = 0.35). ICG-FA reduces anastomotic leak risk in colorectal surgery, particularly in left-sided resections. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen current evidence.
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.