The Use of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography in Pediatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Narrative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) is a validated non-invasive imaging technique used to assess tissue vascularization and guide intraoperative decisions in many surgical fields including plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and general surgery. While this technology is well-established in adult surgery, it remains sparsely used in pediatric surgery. Our aim was to systematically review and provide an overview of all available evidence on the perioperative use of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in pediatric surgical patients. Methods:We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Medline, All EBM Reviews, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL COMPLETE databases to identify articles describing the perioperative use of ICG-FA in pediatric patients. Two independent authors screened all included articles for eligibility and inclusion criteria. We extracted data on study design, demographics, surgical indications, indocyanine green dose, and perioperative outcomes. We developed a risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Results:Of 1,031 articles retrieved, a total of 64 articles published between 2003 and 2020 were included reporting on 664 pediatric patients. Most articles were case reports and case series (n= 36; 56%). No adverse events related to ICG-FA were reported in the included articles. Risk of bias was high. We did not conduct a meta-analysis given the heterogeneous nature of the populations, interventions, and outcome measures. A narrative synthesis is presented. Conclusion:Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography is a safe imaging technology and its use is increasing rapidly in pediatric surgical specialties. However, the quality of evidence supporting this trend currently appears low. Case-control and randomized trials are needed to determine the adequate pediatric dose and to confirm the potential benefits of ICG-FA in pediatric surgical patients. Systematic Review Registration:This study was registered on Prospero a priori, identifier: CRD42020151981.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".