ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
EUS-guided drainage for pelvic abscesses: a Chinese single-center two-year follow-up study highlighting clinical outcomes.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)- guided drainage has emerged as a novel technique for managing pelvic abscesses. This single-center retrospective case series aims to assess the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage in treating pelvic abscesses of varying etiologies from 2021 to the present.
methodsConsecutive patients with pelvic abscesses who underwent EUS-guided drainage were retrospectively reviewed. Etiologies included appendiceal abscess secondary to acute appendicitis (n = 1), pelvic abscesses resulting from anastomotic leaks following rectal cancer surgery (n = 2), and perianal abscesses associated with Crohn's disease (n = 7). The primary outcome was technical success and reduction in abscess cavity size, assessed via follow-up imaging. Clinical success was defined as significant reduction or complete resolution of the abscess cavity size on follow-up imaging at one-month post-procedure, accompanied by clinical symptom resolution and without the need for additional interventions. Secondary outcomes included post-procedural complications and resolution of the abscess without additional interventions.
resultsEUS-guided drainage was technically successful in all cases. The median reduction in abscess size was statistically significant (Mean SD: 24.1 ± 11.11, p < 0.05). During follow-up, imaging results confirmed significant reduction in the size of pelvic abscesses in 9 patients, except for one case at the 1-month post-procedure. None of the patients required further surgical intervention, and 2 cases recurrences were observed in the sixth- and tenth-months post-procedure. Additionally, no procedure-related complications were reported.
conclusionEUS-guided drainage is a safe and effective therapeutic option for managing pelvic abscesses of various etiologies. Its efficacy, particularly in Crohn's disease-related cases, and the absence of complications in this cohort, suggest significant potential for broader clinical application.
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.