Table 4.
Results of ICG-R15 test between PHLF and non-PHLF groups
| Study ID | PHLF | Non-PHLF | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | % (mean or median) | Cases | % (mean or median) | AUC | ||
| Cho 2011 | 7 | 12.32 ± 5.25 | 22 | 13.07 ± 5.15 | Not sig | 0.54 |
| Sato 2015 | 7 | ICG-Krem: 0.07 | 4 | ICG-Krem:0.101 | Sig | NA |
| Jin 2016 | 7 | 11.5 (1.9–22.0) | 114 | 7.0 (0.0–68.8) | Not sig | NA |
| Asenbaum 2018 | 16 |
4.25 (3.55–7.0) ICG-PDR: 21.2 (17.8–24.7) |
46 |
2.75 (1.0–6.0) ICG-PDR: 25.0 (18.0–30.3) |
Not sig |
0.35 (ICG-PDR: 0.65) |
| Chuang 2018 | 16 | 10.4 | 99 | 7.6 | Not sig | NA |
| Kim 2018 | 18 |
ICG-PDR: 0.12 ± 0.04 ICG-PDR*FLR: 64.19 ± 37.67 ICGPDR*FLR/BW: 0.95 ± 0.51 |
55 |
ICG-PDR:0.16 ± 0.03 ICG-PDR*FLR: 137.81 ± 69.39 ICG-PDR*FLR/BW: 2.14 ± 1.06 |
Sig |
0.75 (ICG-PDR) |
| Araki 2020 | 5† | SCoh: 9.1 (8.1–12.8) † | 124† | SCoh: 11.2 (1.8–42.0) † | Not sig | 0.57 |
| Orimo 2020 | 29 | SCoh: 12.1 (2.3–87.8) | 111 | SCoh: 10.7 (2.6–94.2) | Not sig | NA |
| Zhu 2020 | 15 | 8.2 (1.3–28.4) | 86 | 12.8 (6.1–18.0) | Sig | NA |
| Tsujita 2020 | 9† | 15.7 (12.8–20.9)†; ICG-PDR: 10.5 (9.6–12.9)† | 32† |
11.1(6.6–15.3) †; ICG-PDR:14.2 (12.1–16.5) † |
Sig |
0.78 (ICG-PDR: 0.76) |
| Wang 2020 | 28 | 6.5 (3.8–9.8) | 88 | 3.1 (2.1–5.3) | Sig | 0.77 |
† Grade B, C PHLF versus no/grade A PHLF, in which clinical management after operation is altered in grade B, C PHLF while it remains the same in grade A of PHLF; AUC, area under the curve; ICG-Krem, indocyanine green clearance of the liver remnant; ICG-PDR, indocyanine green plasma disappearance rate; ICG-PDR*FLR, ICG-PDR multiply by the volume of future liver remnant (FLR), and (ICG-PDR*FLR)/BW is ICG-PDR*FLR corrected by body weight; ICG-R15 test, ICG retention rate at 15 min after injection; PHLF, posthepatectomy liver failure; NA, not available; SCoh, study cohort; Sig, significant with p < 0.05