4.6 Article

Near-infrared (NIR) perfusion angiography in minimally invasive colorectal surgery

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3432-y

关键词

Laparoscopy; Colorectal resection; Anastomotic leak; Near infrared (NIR) laparoscopy; Indocyanine green (ICG); Perfusion

类别

资金

  1. Oxford Colon Cancer Trust (OCCTOPUS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anastomotic leakage is a devastating complication of colorectal surgery. However, there is no technology indicative of in situ perfusion of a laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis. We detail the use of near-infrared (NIR) laparoscopy (PinPoint System, NOVADAQ, Canada) in association with fluorophore [indocyanine green (ICG), 2.5 mg/ml] injection in 30 consecutive patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colorectal resection using the simultaneous appearance of the cecum or distal ileum as positive control. The median (range) age of the patients was 64 (40-81) years with a median (range) BMI of 26.7 (20-35.5) kg/m(2). Twenty-four patients had left-sided resections (including six low anterior resections) and six had right-sided resections. Of the total, 25 operations were cancer resections and five were for benign disease [either diverticular strictures (n = 3) or Crohn's disease (n = 2)]. A high-quality intraoperative ICG angiogram was achieved in 29/30 patients. After ICG injection, median (range) time to perfusion fluorescence was 35 (15-45) s. Median (range) added time for the technique was 5 (3-9) min. Anastomotic perfusion was documented as satisfactory in every successful case and encouraged avoidance of defunctioning stomas in three patients with low anastomoses. There were no postoperative anastomotic leaks. Perfusion angiography of colorectal anastomosis at the time of their laparoscopic construction is feasible and readily achievable with minimal added intraoperative time. Further work is required to determine optimum sensitivity and threshold levels for assessment of perfusion sufficiency, in particular with regard to anastomotic viability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据