Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42513450›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026

Clinical Challenges in Acute Cholecystitis: Endoscopic Drainage Strategies (EUS-GBD vs. ET-GBD) in Patients with Surgical Contraindications.

Dong Wook Lee, Chang Min Cho

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Dong Wook LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41944, Republic of Korea.
Chang Min ChoDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41944, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9903-1282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute cholecystitis (AC) is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal emergencies, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy representing the definitive treatment per current guidelines. However, a substantial proportion of patients-particularly elderly individuals with major comorbidities, multiorgan dysfunction, or advanced malignancy-are considered poor surgical candidates in whom operative intervention carries prohibitive risk. Although percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has traditionally served as the first-line non-surgical alternative, its significant morbidity and technical limitations in patients with coagulopathy, massive ascites, or an unsafe percutaneous window have driven the development of endoscopic drainage modalities. This review critically appraises the comparative evidence for two endoscopic gallbladder drainage strategies: endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD), performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), most commonly using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). In appropriately selected high-risk surgical candidates, EUS-GBD with LAMS has emerged as a preferred endoscopic option, supported by high technical success rates, low recurrent AC rates, AGA expert guidance, and FDA regulatory reclassification of the AXIOS stent for gallbladder drainage. Nevertheless, ET-GBD retains distinct clinical indications, including concurrent biliary intervention, large-volume ascites, high bleeding risk, anticipated surgical candidacy, and resource-limited settings. Optimal management requires a systematic, algorithm-driven multidisciplinary approach integrating comorbidity profile, biliary anatomy, cystic duct patency, and institutional expertise.

Indexed as

acute cholecystitisendoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainageendoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainagelumen-apposing metal stentsurgical high-risk patients

Identifiers

PMID42513450
PMCPMC13413072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.