Evidence Hub

Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography for prevention of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a graded systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Albashier M, Al Sayed M, Altabbaa H, Hih N, Maged M, Lebda N, Amgad A, Zidan MH

Techniques in coloproctology, 2026

4,712 participants

Abstract

Background: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a major driver of morbidity after colorectal resection. Indocyanine-green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) provides real-time intraoperative perfusion assessment, but its impact across randomized trials remains debated. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICG-FA compared with conventional intraoperative assessment in preventing AL in colorectal surgery.

Methods: A systematic review and a meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, including RCTs comparing ICG-FA with conventional assessment. The primary outcome was overall AL; secondary outcomes included leak grade, anatomic location, operative metrics, and change in surgical plan (CISP). Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate evidence sufficiency.

Results: Eight RCTs (n = 4712) met the inclusion criteria. ICG-FA reduced overall AL versus control (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.81; I2 = 0%). The absolute risk reduction was 3.6%, yielding a number needed to treat of around 24 to prevent one leak. TSA crossed the superiority boundary for the primary endpoint, indicating sufficient evidence of the assumed control risk and effect size. Benefits were more apparent for left-sided anastomoses and for lower-grade leaks (A and A + B), whereas severe (Grade C) leaks and reoperation did not differ…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,712 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free