Table 2.
Fluorescence imaging method for assessing anastomotic leak after gastrectomy.
| References | Type of Research (Number of Cases) | ICG Dose | Surgical Method | Imaging System | The Main Measurement | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual Fluorescence Imaging Assessment | ||||||
| Brian, 2017 [28] | Prospective clinical study (40) | 7.5 mg | E-G | PINPOINT | Presence of perfusion demarcation in the gastric wall | No perfusion demarcation seen within 60 s of injection |
| Noma K, 2018 [26] | Retrospective clinical study (285) | 12.5 mg | E-G | NIR | The time to visible perfusion of the gastric wall after ICG injection | No fluorescence for more than 30 s |
| Kumagai Y, 2018 [24] | Clinical cohort study (18) | 2.5 mg | E-G | PDE | Time of visible fluorescence at the root of the right omental artery after ICG injection | No fluorescence for more than 90 s |
| Elke Van Daele 2022 [30] | Retrospective clinical studies (266) | 0.5 mg/kg | EG | NIR | 1.Fluorescence development time 2.Fluorescence homogeneity |
The results were not statistically different |
| Slooter, 2021 [29] | Prospective clinical study (84) | 0.05 mg/kg | E-G | PINPOINT | 1.Time from ICG injection to fundus imaging 2.Time from ICG injection toanastomosis imaging |
The results were not statistically different |
| Yeon-Ju Huh, 2018 [21] | Prospective clinical study (30) | 2.5 mg | DG, TG, PPG | NIR | The Sherwinter scale | The results were not statistically different |
| Quantitative Fluorescence Imaging Assessment | ||||||
| Haryadi Prasetya, 2019 [38] | Preclinical studies | – | Tube gastric model | – | Pass Threshold Relative Time (RTT) Predicting Relative Residual Flow (RRF) |
RTT less than 20 % of the maximum threshold |
| Nikolaj Nerup, 2020 [31] | Prospective clinical study (10) | 0.5 mg/kg | E-G | Image-1 SPIES (software) | 1.slope of the curve (Δfluorescence intensi ty/Δtime) 2.relative values of perfusion (slope/max slope) |
– |
| Jens Osterkamp, 2020 [41] | Preclinical studies (10 animal models) | 0.25 mg/kg | E-G | PINPOINT | Normalized slope | – |
| Philipp von Kroge, 2021 [34] | Clinical cohort study (20) | 0.02 mg/kg | E-G | SPY Elite; MVCL (software) |
SFI, BSFI, TTS | SFI reduction of >32 %, BSFI reduction of >23 % |
| Sanne M. Jansen, 2022 [37] | Clinical cohort study (22) | – | E-G | NIR | FImax, Tmax, Fslope | Fslope <0.2 |
| Koyanagi, 2016 [22] | Clinical cohort study (40) | – | E-G | PDE | Flow rate of ICG through the gastric wall | ICG flow rate <1.76 cm/s |
| Mikito Mori, 2020 [39] | Retrospective clinical study (100) | 0.5 mg/kg | B–I/B-II/RY/EG | Image-1 SPIES | DT, ST | ST ≥ 34s, DT ≥ 18 s |
| Kazuo Koyanagi, 2020 [23] | Prospective clinical study (109) | 1.25 mg | EG | PDE | Flow rate of ICG | Fluorescent blood flow velocity ≤2.07 cm/s in the lateral gastric lesser curvature |
| Anna Dupre'e, 2020 [42] | Preclinical studies (7 animal models) | 0.02 mg/kg | E-G | LLS GmbH（software） | SFI, BSFI, TTS | – |
PDE:Photo dynamic Eye. EG:esophagogastrostomy; DG:distal gastrectomy. TG:total gastrectomy. PPG: Pylorus preserving gastrectomy. MVCLF：Meteroarchive VCL LLS Fluoreszenzangiographie V 1.0.