Evidence Hub

Indocyanine green fluorescent cholangiography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Túlio Pimentel, Ivo Queiroz, Mariano Gallo Ruelas, Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita, M. Defante, M. Roy, Tyler J. Loftus

Surgery, 2025

1,586 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green fluorescent cholangiography is a noninvasive, real-time visualization method to prevent misinterpretation of biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses exclusively on randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of this technique during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to August 2024. The main endpoints of interest included bile duct injuries and identification success rates of biliary structures. A trial sequential analysis was performed to establish implications for further research.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 1,586 patients were included. The results showed no statistically significant differences in bile duct injuries (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-10.80; I2 = 32%), identification success rates of the cystic duct (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-3.86; I2 = 32%) or common hepatic duct (odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-8.15; I2 = 82%). However, a significant difference was observed in the success rate odds for identifying the common bile duct (odds ratio, 4.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.77-9.41; I2 = 64%). The trial sequential analysis provided certainty that the improved success rate for identifying the common bile duct is not a result of type 1 error, but further studies are necessary to assess the results of most outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Indocyanine green…

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: 1,586 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