SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Operative outcomes of interval cholecystectomy after gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing endoscopic and percutaneous approaches.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical candidates is frequently managed with gallbladder drainage as a bridge to interval cholecystectomy. Each drainage modality-percutaneous transhepatic (PTGBD), EUS-guided (EUS-GBD), and endoscopic transpapillary (ETGBD)-has distinct anatomical effects that may influence subsequent cholecystectomy. While multiple meta-analyses have established drainage efficacy, comparative evidence regarding operative outcomes of interval surgery remains limited.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD420251232718). Five databases were searched (January 2000-December 2025) for comparative studies reporting operative outcomes of interval cholecystectomy after gallbladder drainage. Primary outcomes were conversion to open cholecystectomy and subtotal cholecystectomy. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjusted confidence intervals were used. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsTen comparative studies (2019-2025) were included. Meta-analysis of EUS-GBD versus PTGBD (3 studies, n = 215) showed no statistically significant difference in conversion to open cholecystectomy (6.4% vs. 16.5%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.13; P = 0.07; I²=0%). Meta-analysis of EGBS versus PTGBD (6 studies, n = 416) found no statistically significant difference in conversion (18.9% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.25-5.23; P = 0.83; I²=77%) or subtotal cholecystectomy (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.61-2.18; P = 0.52; I²=0%). One RCT comparing ENGBD versus PTGBD (n = 22) was synthesized descriptively. Certainty of evidence was low to very low.
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences in operative outcomes of interval cholecystectomy were found between endoscopic and percutaneous gallbladder drainage modalities (low to very low certainty of evidence). Given comparable operative outcomes, drainage modality selection may be guided by drainage efficacy, patient anatomy, and institutional expertise. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD420251232718.
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.