Interobserver Variability in the Assessment of Fluorescence Angiography in the Colon

Background Fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery is a technique that may lead to lower anastomotic leak rates. However, the interpretation of the fluorescent signal is not standardised and there is a paucity of data regarding interobserver agreement. The aim of this study is to assess inter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical innovation 2023-02, Vol.30 (1), p.45-49
Hauptverfasser: Soares, Antonio S., Clancy, Neil T., Bano, Sophia, Raza, Imran, Diana, Michelle, Lovat, Laurence B., Stoyanov, Danail, Chand, Manish
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery is a technique that may lead to lower anastomotic leak rates. However, the interpretation of the fluorescent signal is not standardised and there is a paucity of data regarding interobserver agreement. The aim of this study is to assess interobserver variability in selection of the transection point during fluorescence angiography before anastomosis. Methods An online survey with still images of fluorescence angiography was distributed through colorectal surgery channels containing images from 13 patients where several areas for transection were displayed to be chosen by raters. Agreement was assessed overall and between pre-planned rater cohorts (experts vs non-experts; trainees vs consultants; colorectal specialists vs non colorectal specialists), using Fleiss’ kappa statistic. Results 101 raters had complete image ratings. No significant difference was found between raters when choosing a point of optimal bowel transection based on fluorescence angiography still images. There was no difference between pre-planned cohorts analysed (experts vs non-experts; trainees vs consultants; colorectal specialists vs non colorectal specialists). Agreement between these cohorts was poor (
ISSN:1553-3506
1553-3514
DOI:10.1177/15533506221132681