Colorectal surgeons' perspectives on the efficacy of intraoperative bowel perfusion technology with a focus on indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Ashokkumar Singaravelu, Philip D Mc Entee, Patrick A Boland, Alice Moynihan, Cathleen McCarrick, Alexander L Vahrmeijer, Alberto Arezzo, Luigi Boni, Roel Hompes, Ronan A Cahill
{"title":"Colorectal surgeons' perspectives on the efficacy of intraoperative bowel perfusion technology with a focus on indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.","authors":"Ashokkumar Singaravelu, Philip D Mc Entee, Patrick A Boland, Alice Moynihan, Cathleen McCarrick, Alexander L Vahrmeijer, Alberto Arezzo, Luigi Boni, Roel Hompes, Ronan A Cahill","doi":"10.1007/s00423-025-03640-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Level one evidence supports indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGFA) use reducing anastomotic leak rates in colorectal surgery. We surveyed surgeons exploring perceptions and factors affecting its use in daily practice and adoption as routine standard of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Validated electronic survey distributed via the Irish Association of Coloproctology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Milan Colorectal Congress and social media.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>200 colorectal surgeons (143 consultants) responded. 147 (73.5%) surgeons already use ICGFA, with 90 (61.2%) using it routinely and 69 (46.9%) having a concomitant research interest. Strong clinical evidence base (83.5%) and protocol standardisation (78%) were overall rated most important for bowel perfusion technology with a majority of surgeons rating lack of standardisation and inter-user variability as challenges (similar between consultants and non-consultants). Lack of training and staff, reliability concerns and data security were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to non-users, and cost and operating time were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to routine users. Most surgeons (41.5%) ideated a number needed to treat (NNT) between 20 and 40 acceptable to advocate routine ICGFA use with 28% requiring a NNT < 20. Most surgeons (38.5%) indicate a per case cost savings of €250-500 supports routine use with 17% advocating it > €750.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With now a strong evidence base regarding clinical benefit, the survey respondents articulate remaining challenges for ICGFA as standard of care. Levels of expected benefit are largely in keeping with its reported performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11832565/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03640-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Level one evidence supports indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGFA) use reducing anastomotic leak rates in colorectal surgery. We surveyed surgeons exploring perceptions and factors affecting its use in daily practice and adoption as routine standard of care.

Methods: Validated electronic survey distributed via the Irish Association of Coloproctology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, European Society of Surgical Oncology, European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Milan Colorectal Congress and social media.

Results: 200 colorectal surgeons (143 consultants) responded. 147 (73.5%) surgeons already use ICGFA, with 90 (61.2%) using it routinely and 69 (46.9%) having a concomitant research interest. Strong clinical evidence base (83.5%) and protocol standardisation (78%) were overall rated most important for bowel perfusion technology with a majority of surgeons rating lack of standardisation and inter-user variability as challenges (similar between consultants and non-consultants). Lack of training and staff, reliability concerns and data security were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to non-users, and cost and operating time were perceived as significant barriers by selective users compared to routine users. Most surgeons (41.5%) ideated a number needed to treat (NNT) between 20 and 40 acceptable to advocate routine ICGFA use with 28% requiring a NNT < 20. Most surgeons (38.5%) indicate a per case cost savings of €250-500 supports routine use with 17% advocating it > €750.

Conclusions: With now a strong evidence base regarding clinical benefit, the survey respondents articulate remaining challenges for ICGFA as standard of care. Levels of expected benefit are largely in keeping with its reported performance.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信