Current applications of indocyanine green (ICG) in abdominal, gynecologic and urologic surgery: a meta-review and quality analysis with use of the AMSTAR 2 instrument

Pantelis, Athanasios G.; Machairiotis, Nikolaos; Stavros, Sofoklis; Disu, Stewart; Drakakis, Petros

doi:10.1007/s00464-023-10546-4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 141 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of this tool is not to attribute a cumulative score to each study, given the different gravity of each item, but to yield a final rating based on how many crucial and non-crucial items are covered by a given SR/MA. Nevertheless, there are publications that estimate a total score for purposes of comparability [ 10 - 12 ], and this is what we did in the meta-review in hand. We used the online checklist calculator that is available to yield the AMSTAR 2 score for each study ( https://amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php ).…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 73%

Laparoscopic Surgery During Pregnancy: A Meta-Review and Quality Analysis Using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 Instrument

Pantelis,

Machairiotis,

Stavros

et al. 2024

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulation of experience with minimally invasive surgery over the last three decades has rendered laparoscopic surgery the mainstay of management for surgical pathology during pregnancy. In the present meta-review, we compiled the available evidence on the safety of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries during pregnancy, based on relevant systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA). A systematic review was performed for articles published until February 2024 in English using PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and Google Scholar based on predefined selection and exclusion criteria. We implemented the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included SRs and MAs examining women of childbearing age (population) who had undergone laparoscopic surgery or robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy (intervention). The presence of comparison to open surgery was desirable but not mandatory (comparator). The included studies should necessarily report on fetal loss (outcome), and optionally on other metrics of fetal, maternal, or operative performance. We considered SRs/MAs analyzing randomized trials, observational studies, case reports, and case series (study design). The methodological quality of SRs/MAs not exclusively including case reports and case series was assessed with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 instrument. A total of 1229 articles were screened, of which 78 were potentially eligible. Of these, 33 articles met our inclusion criteria, 18 containing SRs only and 15 SRs with MA. The examined disciplines were laparoscopic appendectomy (10 studies, 30.3%), laparoscopic cerclage for cervical insufficiency (eight studies, 24.2%), adnexal-ovarian laparoscopic surgery (five studies, 15.2%), laparoscopic cholecystectomy and biliary tree exploration (three studies, 9.1%), laparoscopic myomectomy (two studies, 6.1%), and one study each for laparoscopic surgery regarding pancreatic indications, adrenal indications, and bariatric complications (3.0%). The odds ratio/relative risk for fetal loss rate ranged from 0-1.9, with variable statistical significance depending on the discipline. Twenty-three out of the 33 studies were submitted to quality evaluation with the AMSTAR 2 instrument, with three being of “low quality” (13.0%) and the remaining 20 of “critically low quality” (87.0%). In conclusion, the widespread acceptance of laparoscopic surgery for treating surgical pathology during pregnancy is substantiated by heterogeneous and low-quality evidence. Literature mainly revolves around laparoscopic appendectomy, whereas other disciplines that may commonly arise during pregnancy, such as cholecystectomy and the acute abdomen following bariatric surgery, are underrepresented in the literature. Factors such as anatomical alterations that may affect surgical access, surgeon’s expertise, and the biological course of the underlying pathology should be taken into consideration when selecti...

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 73%