Comparison of Intravenous Indocyanine-Green and Inflation-Deflation Method in Lung Segmentectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Haidar Ali Robbani Al Asrory, H. Imania
{"title":"Comparison of Intravenous Indocyanine-Green and Inflation-Deflation Method in Lung Segmentectomy: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Haidar Ali Robbani Al Asrory, H. Imania","doi":"10.14710/dmj.v13i4.44956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Inflation-deflation technique had been a conventional method for delineating the intersegmental plane during lung segmentectomy. Over the last decade, the use of icg has shown a significant increase as an alternative method. According to the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons' (ESTS) newly released expert consensus recommendations, Systemic ICG is the preferred method for performing ISP delineation. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety of intravenous ICG in lung segmentectomy compared to inflation-deflation method. Methods: PubMed, Science direct, and Scilit were systematically reviewed. Studies comparing ICG with inflation-deflation method in lung segmentectomy were included. The main outcome included operation time while blood loss, length of hospital stay, and air leakage event became secondary. Odd Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% of Confidence Interval (CI) were applied for dicotomous and continous variable, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and I statistics, as reviewers also manually tested for heterogeneity with sensitivity analysis. Results: Six studies with a total of 839 patients were retrieved. All of them were retrospective comparative studies, mainly with a diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. Most studies utilized peripheral vein injections of 2.5 mg/mL ICG solution, which had a dosage range of 3–10 mL. Intravenous ICG administration was associated with a noticable operation time [MD = -19.30, 95% CI -28.29 to -10.31, p < 0.00001], length of hospital stay [MD = -0.61; 95% CI -1.16 to -0.06, p = 0.03], as well as a significant OR observed in the number air leakage [OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75, p = 0.005]. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the amount of bleeding between the inflation-deflation group and the ICG group [MD = -5.18, 95% CI -12.08 to 1.72, p = 0.14]. Conclusion: This meta-analysis has demonstrated statistically that the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and the probability of postoperative air leak are significantly lower with the application of ICG in lung segmentectomy.","PeriodicalId":426927,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Kedokteran Diponegoro (Diponegoro Medical Journal)","volume":"100 S396","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Kedokteran Diponegoro (Diponegoro Medical Journal)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14710/dmj.v13i4.44956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inflation-deflation technique had been a conventional method for delineating the intersegmental plane during lung segmentectomy. Over the last decade, the use of icg has shown a significant increase as an alternative method. According to the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons' (ESTS) newly released expert consensus recommendations, Systemic ICG is the preferred method for performing ISP delineation. Objective: This study aimed to determine the safety of intravenous ICG in lung segmentectomy compared to inflation-deflation method. Methods: PubMed, Science direct, and Scilit were systematically reviewed. Studies comparing ICG with inflation-deflation method in lung segmentectomy were included. The main outcome included operation time while blood loss, length of hospital stay, and air leakage event became secondary. Odd Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% of Confidence Interval (CI) were applied for dicotomous and continous variable, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and I statistics, as reviewers also manually tested for heterogeneity with sensitivity analysis. Results: Six studies with a total of 839 patients were retrieved. All of them were retrospective comparative studies, mainly with a diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. Most studies utilized peripheral vein injections of 2.5 mg/mL ICG solution, which had a dosage range of 3–10 mL. Intravenous ICG administration was associated with a noticable operation time [MD = -19.30, 95% CI -28.29 to -10.31, p < 0.00001], length of hospital stay [MD = -0.61; 95% CI -1.16 to -0.06, p = 0.03], as well as a significant OR observed in the number air leakage [OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75, p = 0.005]. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the amount of bleeding between the inflation-deflation group and the ICG group [MD = -5.18, 95% CI -12.08 to 1.72, p = 0.14]. Conclusion: This meta-analysis has demonstrated statistically that the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and the probability of postoperative air leak are significantly lower with the application of ICG in lung segmentectomy.
肺段切除术中静脉注射花青素绿与充气-放气法的比较:一项 Meta 分析
背景:充气-放气技术是肺段切除术中划定肺段间平面的传统方法。在过去十年中,icg 作为一种替代方法的使用率显著上升。根据欧洲胸外科医师学会(ESTS)最新发布的专家共识建议,系统 ICG 是进行 ISP 划线的首选方法。目的:本研究旨在确定肺段切除术中静脉 ICG 与充气-放气法相比的安全性。研究方法系统地查阅了 PubMed、Science direct 和 Scilit。纳入了在肺段切除术中比较 ICG 与充气-充气法的研究。主要结果包括手术时间,其次是失血量、住院时间和漏气事件。对于二分变量和连续变量,分别采用了奇异比(OR)和平均差(MD),以及 95% 的置信区间(CI)。异质性采用 Cochrane Q 和 I 统计法进行评估,审稿人还通过敏感性分析对异质性进行了人工检测。结果共检索到六项研究,共计 839 名患者。所有研究均为回顾性比较研究,主要诊断为肺结节。大多数研究采用外周静脉注射 2.5 毫克/毫升的 ICG 溶液,剂量范围为 3-10 毫升。静脉注射 ICG 与明显的手术时间[MD = -19.30,95% CI -28.29 to -10.31,p < 0.00001]、住院时间[MD = -0.61;95% CI -1.16 to -0.06,p = 0.03]以及漏气次数的显著 OR 值[OR = 0.39;95% CI 0.20 to 0.75,p = 0.005]相关。同时,充气-充气组与 ICG 组的出血量无明显差异[MD = -5.18,95% CI -12.08 至 1.72,P = 0.14]。结论:这项荟萃分析在统计学上证明,在肺段切除术中应用 ICG,手术时间、住院时间和术后漏气的概率都明显降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信