A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evaluation of inter-user variability in indocyanine green fluorescence angiography to assess gastric conduit perfusion in esophageal cancer surgery. | LitMetric

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10204994PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/dote/doac016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gastric conduit
16
indocyanine green
8
green fluorescence
8
fluorescence angiography
8
icgfa
8
versus non-expert
8
evaluation inter-user
4
inter-user variability
4
variability indocyanine
4
angiography assess
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!