Observational studySurgical endoscopy2026
Transgastric versus transduodenal endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage: an observational study.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is an effective strategy for high-risk surgical patients. The optimal access route-transgastric (TG) versus transduodenal (TD)-remains uncertain. We compared outcomes of TG versus TD EUS-GBD at a high-volume tertiary center.
methodsWe included patients who underwent EUS-GBD between January 2020 and December 2024. Baseline demographics, clinical variables, and outcomes data were collected. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of cholecystitis or relief of biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes included stent misdeployment, adverse events (AEs), and need for endoscopic reintervention. Comparisons were performed using the unpaired T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test, with significance at p < 0.05.
resultsWe included 82 patients (mean age 72 years, 48% female). The indication for drainage was cholecystitis for 45 (55%) patients and MDBO with a patent cystic duct and prior failed ERCP for 37 (45%) patients. Sixty-four (78%) patients underwent transduodenal (TD) EUS-GBD and 18 (22%) underwent transgastric (TG) EUS-GBD. There was no difference between the two groups for clinical success (TD 89% vs. TG 94%, p = 0.68) overall nor when evaluated by procedural indication. There were five (8%) cases of stent misdeployment in the TD EUS-GBD group and zero cases in the TG EUS-GBD group (p = 0.58), all of which were salvaged endoscopically. There were no significant differences between groups for AEs (20% vs. 17%, p = > 0.99) or unplanned endoscopic reintervention (16% vs. 11%, p = > 0.99).
conclusionsBoth TG and TD EUS-GBD are effective and relatively safe, supporting an individualized approach based on technical feasibility and future surgical candidacy. A potential trend toward more misdeployments in the TD EUS-GBD group warrants further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41493548What 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.