Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33479837›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus open surgical gastrojejunostomy: clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness analysis.

Abdul Kouanda, Kenneth Binmoeller, Christopher Hamerski, Andrew Nett, Jona Bernabe, Rabindra Watson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy: a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdul KouandaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Kenneth BinmoellerInterventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 94109, USA.
Christopher HamerskiInterventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 94109, USA.
Andrew NettInterventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 94109, USA.
Jona BernabeInterventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 94109, USA.
Rabindra WatsonInterventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 94109, USA. watsorr@suttherhealth.org.ORCID 0000-0002-1429-7381
California Pacific Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly data suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a safe and efficacious option for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, there is a scarcity of data comparing outcomes with open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ).

methodsSingle-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with GOO who underwent EUS-GE or OGJ between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success.

resultsSixty-six patients were included of which 40 (60.0%) underwent EUS-GE and 26 (40.0%) underwent OGJ. Baseline characteristics were similar with respect to age (70.5 vs 69.7, p = 0.81), sex (42.5% vs 42.3% female, p = 0.99), median length of follow-up (98.0 vs 166.5 days, p = 0.8), prior failed intervention for GOO (22.5% vs 26.9%, p = 0.68), and the presence of altered anatomy (12.5% vs 30.8%, p = 0.07) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) of EUS-GE and 26 (100%) of OGJ patients (p = 0.15). EUS-GE was associated with faster resumption of oral intake (1.3 vs 4.7 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (5 vs 14.5 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in symptom recurrence (17.5% vs 19.2%, HR 1.85, CI 0.52-6.65, p = 0.34), reintervention (20% vs 11.5%, HR 0.82, CI 0.22-3.15, p = 0.78), death within 30 days (12.5% vs 3.8%, HR 0.80, CI 0.09-6.85, p = 0.84), or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 24.1%, HR 1.69, CI 0.53-5.41, p = 0.37) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. EUS-GE patients initiated chemotherapy sooner (17.7 vs 31.3 days, p = 0.033) and had lower overall costs as compared to OGJ ($49,387 vs $124,192, p < 0.001).

conclusionThere were no significant differences in technical or clinical success, symptom recurrence, reintervention, 30-day readmission, or 30-day mortality between EUS-GE and OGJ. EUS-GE patients experienced shorter delays to resumption of oral intake and chemotherapy, had shorter lengths of stay, and reduced hospital costs. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to verify our results.

Indexed as

Gastric BypassGastric Outlet ObstructionAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGastroenterostomyHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesStentsUltrasonography, InterventionalBenign gastric outlet obstructionEndoscopic stentEndoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomyLumen apposing metal stentMalignant gastric outlet obstructionSurgical gastrojejunostomy

Identifiers

PMID33479837
OpenAlexW3122679683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.