ArticleMedicine2026
Intraoperative outcomes of 2-dose indocyanine green fluorescence imaging strategies versus white light in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cystic duct stones: A retrospective comparative study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the intraoperative outcomes of 2 indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging strategies (low-dose 0.25 mg vs conventional-dose 2.50 mg) with conventional white-light (WL) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cystic duct (CD) stones and to determine whether a reduced ICG dose improves duct-to-liver contrast in the setting of biliary inflammation. This retrospective study included 138 patients with CD stones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2024 and February 2026, allocated to 3 groups: low-dose ICG (0.25 mg), conventional-dose ICG (2.50 mg), or WL imaging. Propensity score matching (1:1 nearest-neighbor, caliper 0.2 standard deviation) was performed to balance baseline covariates. Primary outcomes were operative time, bile duct identification time, and the fluorescence intensity comparison value (FICV). Secondary outcomes included postoperative recovery parameters. After matching, 110 patients were included in the final analysis, and baseline characteristics were well balanced (all P > .05). Both ICG groups had significantly shorter operative time and bile duct identification time than the control group (both P < .001). Post hoc comparison between the 2 ICG protocols showed no significant difference for operative or bile duct identification time. The 0.25 mg group achieved a higher fluorescence success rate (78.6% vs 51.9%, P = .037) and a positive FICV, whereas the 2.50 mg group frequently showed a negative FICV (P < .001), indicating hepatic oversaturation. No significant differences were observed among the groups in postoperative recovery parameters (all P > .05). Fluorescence-guided surgery improves intraoperative efficiency and bile duct visualization in patients with CD stones compared with conventional WL imaging. Low-dose ICG (0.25 mg) provides enhanced duct-to-liver contrast versus 2.50 mg, highlighting the potential of pathology-specific dosing to improve surgical precision in inflammatory biliary conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.