ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
The evaluation of cognitive workload associated with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative ICGFA use is correlated with lower rates of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery. This study evaluated the cognitive workload (CWL) associated with the interpretation of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery, relative to other operative tasks, in both simulated and actual surgeries.
methodsSpecialty surgical trainees, fellows and consultants were recruited with consent. Heart rate variability (HRV) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) were used as physiological indicators of CWL during both a simulated skills lab [sequentially measuring CWL at baseline and during 'simple' and 'advanced' laparoscopic skills and during operative video interpretation of surgical anatomy and ICGFA] and in theatre during resectional colorectal surgery (monitoring relative CWL during serial operative steps immediately before and after ICGFA).
results22 participants completed simulation testing, with 11 also providing in-theatre data. The majority had minimal/no ICGFA experience. In simulation testing, linear mixed-effects (LME) modelling of the fNIRS data indicated that ICGFA interpretation was not significantly associated with higher CWL versus baseline overall, but this varied by individual with consultants and non-GI surgeons having significantly lower CWL for ICGFA interpretation (p < 0.05). HRV modelling revealed somewhat contrasting parameter findings with elevated CWL during laparoscopic skills being the more robust conclusion. In-theatre testing (10 colorectal surgeons) revealed ICGFA interpretation imposed broadly similar CWL to other inline operative steps, being peak CWL in four individuals by HRC or at least one fNIRS measure with one measure indicating significantly higher CWL than exercised in simulation.
conclusionsICGFA interpretation exhibits broadly similar CWL as other operative steps, in both simulated and in-theatre settings with important differences evident by test context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41148309What 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.