ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2023
Comparison of percutaneous gallbladder aspiration with percutaneous cholecystostomy in acute cholecystostomy patients. Can gall bladder aspiration alone be sufficient?
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and complication rates of percutaneous gallbladder aspiration (PA) and percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) in the management of AC and present the experiences of a single third-line center.
methodsThe results of 159 patients with AC who admitted to our hospital between 2015 and 2020, that underwent PA and PC procedures, because they did not respond to conservative treatment and LC could not be performed, were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and laboratory data before and 3 days after PC and PA procedure, technical success, complications, response to treatment, duration of hospital stay, and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results were recorded.
resultsOut of 159 patients, 22 (8 men 14 women) underwent PA procedure and 137 (57 men 80 women) underwent PC. No significant difference was detected between the PA and PC groups in terms of clinical recovery (P: 0.532) and duration of hospital stay (P: 0.138) in 72 h. The technical success of both procedures was 100%. While 20 out of 22 patients with PA were having a noticable recovery, only one was treated with twice PA procedures and a complete recovery was observed (4.5%). Complication rates were low in both groups and were statistically insignificant (P: 1.00).
conclusionIn this pandemic period, PA and PC procedures are effective, reliable, and successful treatment method that can be applied at the bedside for critical patients with AC who are not compatible with surgery, which are safe for health workers and low-risk minimal invasive procedures for patients. In uncomplicated AC patients, PA should be performed, and if there is no response to treatment, PC should be reserved as a salvage procedure. The PC procedure should be performed in patients with AC who have developed complications and are not suitable for surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.