TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of inter-user variability in indocyanine green fluorescence angiography to assess gastric conduit perfusion in esophageal cancer surgery
AU - Hardy, Niall P.
AU - Joosten, Johanna J.
AU - Dalli, Jeffrey
AU - Hompes, Roel
AU - Cahill, Ronan A.
AU - van Berge Henegouwen, Mark I.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
PY - 2022/11/15
Y1 - 2022/11/15
N2 - Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography (ICGFA) has been deployed to tackle malperfusion-related anastomotic complications. This study assesses variations in operator interpretation of pre-anastomotic ICGFA inflow in the gastric conduit. Utilizing an innovative online interactive multimedia platform (Mindstamp), esophageal surgeons completed a baseline opinion-practice questionnaire and proceeded to interpret, and then digitally assign, a distal transection point on 8 ICGFA videos of esophageal resections (6 Ivor Lewis, 2 McKeown). Annotations regarding gastric conduit transection by ICGFA were compared between expert users versus non-expert participants using ImageJ to delineate longitudinal distances with Shapiro Wilk and t-tests to ascertain significance. Expert versus non-expert correlation was assessed via Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Thirty participants (13 consultants, 6 ICGFA experts) completed the study in all aspects. Of these, a high majority (29 participants) stated ICGFA should be used routinely with most (21, including 5/6 experts) stating that 11-50 cases were needed for competency in interpretation. Among users, there were wide variations in dosing (0.05-3 mg/kg) and practice impact. Agreement regarding ICGFA video interpretation concerning transection level among experts was 'moderate' (ICC = 0.717) overall but 'good' (ICC = 0.871) among seven videos with Leave One Out (LOO) exclusion of the video with highest disagreement. Agreement among non-experts was moderate (ICC = 0.641) overall and in every subgroup including among consultants (ICC = 0.626). Experts choose levels that preserved more gastric conduit length versus non-experts in all but one video (P = 0.02). Considerable variability exists with ICGFA interpretation and indeed impact. Even adept users may be challenged in specific cases. Standardized training and/or computerized quantitative fluorescence may help better usage.
AB - Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography (ICGFA) has been deployed to tackle malperfusion-related anastomotic complications. This study assesses variations in operator interpretation of pre-anastomotic ICGFA inflow in the gastric conduit. Utilizing an innovative online interactive multimedia platform (Mindstamp), esophageal surgeons completed a baseline opinion-practice questionnaire and proceeded to interpret, and then digitally assign, a distal transection point on 8 ICGFA videos of esophageal resections (6 Ivor Lewis, 2 McKeown). Annotations regarding gastric conduit transection by ICGFA were compared between expert users versus non-expert participants using ImageJ to delineate longitudinal distances with Shapiro Wilk and t-tests to ascertain significance. Expert versus non-expert correlation was assessed via Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Thirty participants (13 consultants, 6 ICGFA experts) completed the study in all aspects. Of these, a high majority (29 participants) stated ICGFA should be used routinely with most (21, including 5/6 experts) stating that 11-50 cases were needed for competency in interpretation. Among users, there were wide variations in dosing (0.05-3 mg/kg) and practice impact. Agreement regarding ICGFA video interpretation concerning transection level among experts was 'moderate' (ICC = 0.717) overall but 'good' (ICC = 0.871) among seven videos with Leave One Out (LOO) exclusion of the video with highest disagreement. Agreement among non-experts was moderate (ICC = 0.641) overall and in every subgroup including among consultants (ICC = 0.626). Experts choose levels that preserved more gastric conduit length versus non-experts in all but one video (P = 0.02). Considerable variability exists with ICGFA interpretation and indeed impact. Even adept users may be challenged in specific cases. Standardized training and/or computerized quantitative fluorescence may help better usage.
KW - anastomotic leakage
KW - esophageal cancer
KW - indocyanine green
KW - interobserver variability
KW - near-infrared laparoscopy
KW - perfusion angiogram
KW - upper gastrointestinal surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129887976&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85129887976&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35428892
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doac016
DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doac016
M3 - Article
C2 - 35428892
SN - 1120-8694
VL - 35
JO - Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
JF - Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus
IS - 11
ER -