Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (FALCON): an international multicentre randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the added value of Near InfraRed Fluorescence (NIRF) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: This international multicentre randomized controlled trial included participants with an indication for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Participants were randomised into a NIRF imaging assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (NIRF-LC) group and a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) group. Primary end point was time to 'Critical View of Safety' (CVS). The follow-up period of this study was 90 postoperative days. An expert panel analysed the video recordings after surgery to confirm designated surgical time points. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were included, of which 143 were randomized in the NIRF-LC and 151 in the CLC group. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed. Time to CVS was on average 19 min and 14 s for the NIRF-LC group and 23 min and 9 s for the CLC group (p 0.032). Time to identification of the CD was 6 min and 47 s and 13 min for NIRF-LC and CLC respectively (p < 0.001). Transition of the CD in the gallbladder was identified after an average of 9 min and 39 s with NIRF-LC, compared to 18 min and 7 s with CLC (p < 0.001). No difference in postoperative length of hospital stay nor occurrence of postoperative complications was found. ICG related complications were limited to one patient who developed a rash after injection of ICG. CONCLUSION: Use of NIRF imaging in laparoscopic cholecystectomy provides earlier identification of relevant extrahepatic biliary anatomy: earlier achievement of CVS, cystic duct visualisation and visualisation of both cystic duct and cystic artery transition into the gallbladder.

Imaging for Quality Control: Comparison of Systematic Video Recording to the Operative Note in Colorectal Cancer Surgery. A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncological and functional results after colorectal cancer surgery vary considerably between hospitals and surgeons. At present, the only source of technical information about the surgical procedure is the operative note, which is subjective and omits critical information. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of operative video recording in demonstrating both objective information concerning the surgical procedure and surgical quality, as using a systematic approach might improve surgical performance. METHODS: From July 2015 through November 2015, patients aged ≥18 years undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery were prospectively included in a single-institution trial. Video recording of key moments was performed peroperatively and analyzed for adequacy. The study cases were compared with a historic cohort. Video was compared with the operative note using the amount of adequate steps and a scoring system. RESULTS: This study compared 15 cases to 32 cases from the historic control group. Compared to the written operative note alone, significant differences in availability of information were seen in favor of video as well as using a combination of video plus the operative note (N adequate steps p = .024; p = <.001. Adequacy score: p = .039; p = <.001, both respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic video registration is feasible and seems to improve the availability of essential information after colorectal cancer surgery. In this respect, combining video with a traditional operative note would be the best option. A multicenter international study is being organized to further evaluate the effect of operative video capture on surgical outcomes.

[An image says more than a thousand words; standardising video registration in the operating theatre]. / Een beeld zegt meer dan 1000 woorden.

Today, video imaging is a major part of laparoscopic surgery. Despite continuous efforts to improve or innovate laparoscopic techniques, the registration of laparoscopic imaging for quality of care purposes remains an afterthought. By recording the essential steps of a surgical procedure, it is possible to inquire in more detail about what actually occurred in the operating theatre. However, it is necessary to take the legal framework into account. Questions concerning patient consent, permission from healthcare providers, whether video documentation should enter the patient record, and the length of the period it is retained must be answered. Also, the prevention of the misuse of information is important and therefore the purpose of documentation needs to be put on record beforehand. Video documentation is a promising method of registering surgical quality. However, the first priority is to demonstrate the actual quality improvement of video documentation and the formulation of precise guidelines.