ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term palliation of combined malignant gastric outlet and biliary obstruction by using sequentially enteral stents and EUS-guided antegrade biliary and lumen-apposing gastrojejunal stents.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Current Evidence on Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in the Era of Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- International Consensus Statements on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Results From the 1st JGES International in 2025.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- Application and validation of AI-assisted 3D-Printed gastroduodenal anatomical variation models in specialized nursing training.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for managing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), but it is challenging in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP are alternative techniques, but their comparative efficacy and safety in this population are not well-researched. Herein, we evaluated the outcomes of EUS-HGS Patients and methods: This retrospective study included 70 patients with MBO who underwent EUS-HGS ( Results: The EUS-HGS group showed a higher technical success rate (100% Conclusion: EUS-HGS was associated with a superior technical success rate, shorter procedure time, and longer stent patency, without an increased risk of AEs, as compared with SBE-ERCP. Thus, EUS-HGS should be appropriate for managing MBO patients with SAA.
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.