Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37458066›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2024

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage Conversion versus Conservative Treatment Following Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients.

Hyung Ku Chon, Seong-Hun Kim, Tae Hyeon Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut and liver, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hyung Ku ChonDivision of Biliopancreas, Department of Internal Medicine, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University Medical School, Iksan, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6068-3849
Seong-Hun KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7592-8060
Tae Hyeon KimDivision of Biliopancreas, Department of Internal Medicine, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University Medical School, Iksan, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9723-2136
Jeonbuk National University Hospital · KRWonkwang University · KRWonkwang University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: There are no consensus guidelines for patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are unfit for interval cholecystectomy. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopic gallbladder drainage, i.e. conversion from percutaneous cholecystostomy (including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage), and conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis between January 2017 and December 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal without interval cholecystectomy were included. Outcome measures included recurrent acute cholecystitis and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases. Results: During the study period, 238 patients were selected (63 underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion and 175 underwent conservative treatment). Patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion had lower rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis (3 [4.76%] vs 31 [17.71%], p=0.012) and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases (6 [9.52%] vs 40 [22.86%], p=0.022) than those who underwent conservative treatment following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, calculus cholecystitis (odds ratio, 13.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.83 to 102.83; p=0.011) and conversion of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.78; p=0.019) were significant predictive factors for recurrent acute cholecystitis. Conclusions: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion led to more favorable outcomes than conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Therefore, endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion may be considered a promising treatment option for patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are at a high surgical risk.

Indexed as

Cholecystitis, AcuteCholecystostomyGallstonesConservative TreatmentDrainageGallbladderHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAcute cholecystitisConservative treatmentDrainageEndoscopy

Identifiers

PMID37458066
PMCPMC10938147
OpenAlexW4384493137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.