FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022058507> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022058507 endingPage "637" @default.
• W2022058507 startingPage "636" @default.
• W2022058507 abstract "The curvilinear (convex) echoendoscope enables real-time sonographic observation of the needle when accessing a target lesion either for tissue sampling or intervention. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage was first reported for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts.1 Its application has now expanded to include drainage of obstructive pancreatic and biliary ductal systems not accessible by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).2, 3 More recently, the range of its applications has been widened to include gallbladder drainage in poor-risk surgical candidates with gallbladder disease.4, 5 This is particularly relevant for patients in whom transpapillary and percutaneous approaches to gallbladder drainage has failed or is technically difficult. In this edition of the Journal, Widmer and colleagues conducted a review of the literature of patients who underwent EUS-guided gallbladder drainage and reported a technical success rate of 96.6% in 90 patients.5 Patients in whom the procedure was technically successful also had equivalent treatment success rates.5 Complications occurred in 12.2%.5 These outcomes appear comparable to EUS-guided biliary drainage (technical success rate: 94–96%, complication rate: 15–18%) and certainly superior to pancreatic ductal drainage (technical success rate: 77–92%, complication rate: 64%).2-5 EUS-guided drainage involves four intricate steps.1-5 The first step is to identify an appropriate route. The second step is to puncture the drainage target with a needle. The third step is dilation of the transmural tract. The fourth step is insertion of drainage tubes to facilitate drainage. In general, for EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, the transgastric route provides access to the body of the gallbladder and the transduodenal route to the neck of the gallbladder.5 Although the procedural outcomes can possibly be improved further by determining the ideal route for drainage, no comparative studies to this effect have been undertaken so far.1-5 The procedural technique as outlined earlier involves multiple steps. A one-step device that enables puncture, transmural dilation and stent deployment would minimize the risk of guidewire dislodgement and potential complications such as bile leak.3-5 Recently, there is a growing advocacy for the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage. This is mainly because of the premise that SEMS seals the ‘gap’ better between the stent and fistula thereby minimizing the chances for leak and pneumoperitoneum.3-5 Also, the wider lumen of the covered SEMS (CSEMS) facilitates other interventions such as gallstone removal in patients not undergoing a cholecystectomy. Several prototypes with flanges and flares are currently in development to minimize the possibility of stent migration and preliminary reports appear promising. While the review by Widmer et al. focuses mainly on clinical outcomes, there is a serious paucity of data on how EUS-guided gallbladder drainage compares with percutaneous drainage. In the only randomized trial conducted to date, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage was comparable to percutaneous techniques in terms of technical feasibility, efficacy and safety.4 It is also very likely that EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, unlike percutaneous catheters, by virtue of being internal, is unlikely to dislodge, is not associated with skin infections, and provides for better quality of life. However, this crucial assumption has not been investigated so far. The glass unfortunately is half empty. Although technological innovations and technical refinements have steadily improved the rates of procedural success and decreased complications associated with EUS-guided drainage procedures, much more needs to be done. While it is important to conduct well-designed, prospective, randomized trials comparing the different procedural techniques and devices under development for this indication, multidisciplinary studies comparing EUS to percutaneous techniques and/or surgery is essential to move the discipline forward. These studies should not only focus on the technical and treatment outcomes but also on quality of life and cost. Right now, the glass is only half-full." @default.
• W2022058507 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022058507 creator A5032900701 @default.
• W2022058507 creator A5036817380 @default.
• W2022058507 creator A5067888213 @default.
• W2022058507 date "2014-09-01" @default.
• W2022058507 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2022058507 title "Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gallbladder drainage procedures: Is the glass half-full or half-empty?" @default.
• W2022058507 cites W1571108387 @default.
• W2022058507 cites W2013828036 @default.
• W2022058507 cites W2090279896 @default.
• W2022058507 cites W2142046924 @default.
• W2022058507 cites W4252822129 @default.
• W2022058507 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12327" @default.
• W2022058507 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25251207" @default.
• W2022058507 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2022058507 type Work @default.
• W2022058507 sameAs 2022058507 @default.
• W2022058507 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2022058507 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022058507 hasAuthorship W2022058507A5032900701 @default.
• W2022058507 hasAuthorship W2022058507A5036817380 @default.
• W2022058507 hasAuthorship W2022058507A5067888213 @default.
• W2022058507 hasBestOaLocation W20220585071 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C2777148285 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C2778444009 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C2780390042 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C3018651493 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C67592535 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C81182388 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C126838900 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C141071460 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C18903297 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C2775967933 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C2777148285 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C2778444009 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C2780390042 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C2780813298 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C3018651493 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C67592535 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C71924100 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C81182388 @default.
• W2022058507 hasConceptScore W2022058507C86803240 @default.
• W2022058507 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2022058507 hasLocation W20220585071 @default.
• W2022058507 hasLocation W20220585072 @default.
• W2022058507 hasOpenAccess W2022058507 @default.
• W2022058507 hasPrimaryLocation W20220585071 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W127351582 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W1997999712 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2187490770 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2381411048 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2519494077 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2828428991 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2948405309 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2990286878 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W2999521954 @default.
• W2022058507 hasRelatedWork W43085715 @default.
• W2022058507 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2022058507 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022058507 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022058507 magId "2022058507" @default.
• W2022058507 workType "article" @default.