ReviewJPRAS open2026
Intraoperative indocyanine green versus clinical assessment for prevention of free flap failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Both total and partial flap failure are complications of free-tissue transfer surgery associated with significant morbidity, reoperation burden, and healthcare costs. This meta-analysis evaluates whether intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) differs from clinical assessment in preventing total and partial flap loss in free flap surgery. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 17th February 2026. Key search terms included free flap, free tissue transfer, indocyanine green, and fluorescence angiography. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using a leave-one-out approach. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies, and Cochrane RoB-2 for randomised trials. The analysis was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261309021). Results: Eight studies were included in the final analysis, totalling 2179 free-flap procedures, 1098 of which were controls. Controlled studies comparing intraoperative ICG-FA to clinical assessment produced 90% reduction in odds for partial failure (OR 0.10, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.26; p < 0.01), 41% reduction for total failure (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.97; p = 0.04), and 53% reduction for requirement of reoperation (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.88; p = 0.02). Conclusion: Intraoperative ICG-FA was associated with reduced odds of partial and total flap loss, as well as reoperation, compared with conventional clinical assessment. These findings suggest that ICG-FA may therefore represent a valuable adjunct in free flap surgery. Further high-quality prospective trials will be required to better elucidate the true magnitude of effect of ICG-FA in free flap surgery and clarify its role in contemporary microsurgical 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.