Indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography versus intraoperative cholangiography for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Omar Amro, Hasan Al-Chalabi, Rafie Ebrahimi Ghaei, Ahmed Talahmeh, Mohamed S Mohamed

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Omar AmroDepartment of Surgery, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. omar.n.i.amro51@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2921-7049

Hasan Al-ChalabiDepartment of Surgery, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8977-2034

Rafie Ebrahimi GhaeiDepartment of Surgery, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7684-6205

Ahmed TalahmehFaculty of Medicine and Allied Medical Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, West Bank, Palestine.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0027-1060

Mohamed S MohamedDepartment of Surgery, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-2968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is mainly related to misidentification of extrahepatic biliary anatomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography (ICG-FC) with conventional intraoperative X-ray cholangiography (IOC) for biliary visualization, procedural efficiency, technical success, surgeon satisfaction, and perioperative safety. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched without restrictions. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ICG-FC with conventional IOC in adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome was successful visualization of extrahepatic biliary anatomy. Secondary outcomes included cholangiography failure, cholangiography duration, total operative time, surgeon satisfaction, choledocholithiasis detection, perioperative complications, morbidity, conversion to open surgery, and bile duct injury. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and random-effects models were applied. Three RCTs including 494 patients were included. Overall biliary visualization did not differ significantly between ICG-FC and IOC (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.07; P = 0.22; I

Indexed as

Bile duct injuryFluorescence cholangiographyIndocyanine greenIntraoperative cholangiographyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42920082

DOI10.1007/s00595-022-02563-y

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.