ANZ journal of surgery · 2025
Comparison of Three Gallbladder Drainage Methods for Acute Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hu Lingbo, Xu Yongfu, Wang Aidong, Qiao Yingli, Dai Qiqiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD), percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PTGBD), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) for treating acute cholecystitis in individuals with elevated surgical risk is not yet thoroughly evaluated.
METHODS: The clinical success, technical success, and rates of adverse events for these three therapies were assessed using a random-effects model in a network meta-analysis of 2254 patients from 17 trials. We computed risk ratios (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standard mean differences (SMD), and treatments were ranked using P-scores.
RESULTS: PTGBD and EUS-GBD demonstrated superior technical success rates compared to ETGBD (ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD: 95% CI: 0.80-0.88, RR = 0.85; ETGBD vs. PTGBD: 95% CI: 0.79-0.86, RR = 0.83). Similarly, PTGBD and EUS-GBD achieved greater rates of clinical success than ETGBD (ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD: 95% CI: 0.75-0.86, RR = 0.81; ETGBD vs. PTGBD: 95% CI: 0.78-0.90, RR = 0.83). Procedure-related adverse effects did not differ among these three modalities. Based on ranking estimates, although EUS-GBD had the smallest likelihood of adverse events and was predicted to provide maximum clinical success, the highest technical success was probably anticipated from PTGBD.
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD or ETGBD) is a preferred first-line option in centers with advanced endoscopic expertise. PTGBD remains a valuable alternative when such expertise is not available.
METHODS: The clinical success, technical success, and rates of adverse events for these three therapies were assessed using a random-effects model in a network meta-analysis of 2254 patients from 17 trials. We computed risk ratios (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standard mean differences (SMD), and treatments were ranked using P-scores.
RESULTS: PTGBD and EUS-GBD demonstrated superior technical success rates compared to ETGBD (ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD: 95% CI: 0.80-0.88, RR = 0.85; ETGBD vs. PTGBD: 95% CI: 0.79-0.86, RR = 0.83). Similarly, PTGBD and EUS-GBD achieved greater rates of clinical success than ETGBD (ETGBD vs. EUS-GBD: 95% CI: 0.75-0.86, RR = 0.81; ETGBD vs. PTGBD: 95% CI: 0.78-0.90, RR = 0.83). Procedure-related adverse effects did not differ among these three modalities. Based on ranking estimates, although EUS-GBD had the smallest likelihood of adverse events and was predicted to provide maximum clinical success, the highest technical success was probably anticipated from PTGBD.
CONCLUSION: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD or ETGBD) is a preferred first-line option in centers with advanced endoscopic expertise. PTGBD remains a valuable alternative when such expertise is not available.