Objective The optimal management of acute cholecystitis in patients at very high risk for cholecystectomy is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) as a definitive treatment in these patients under a randomised controlled trial. Design Consecutive patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis but were at very high-risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. The primary outcome was the 1-year adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, pain scores, unplanned readmissions, re-interventions and mortalities. Results Between August 2014 to February 2018, 80 patients were recruited. EUS-GBD significantly reduced 1 year adverse events (10 (25.6%) vs 31 (77.5%), p<0.001), 30-day adverse events (5 (12.8%) vs 19 (47.5%), p=0.010), re-interventions after 30 days (1/39 (2.6%) vs 12/40 (30%), p=0.001), number of unplanned readmissions (6/39 (15.4%) vs 20/40 (50%), p=0.002) and recurrent cholecystitis (1/39 (2.6%) vs 8/40 (20%), p=0.029). Postprocedural pain scores and analgesic requirements were also less (p=0.034). The technical success (97.4% vs 100%, p=0.494), clinical success (92.3% vs 92.5%, p=1) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 10%, p=1) were statistically similar. The predictor to recurrent acute cholecystitis was the performance of PT-GBD (OR (95% CI)=5.63 (1.20–53.90), p=0.027). Conclusion EUS-GBD improved outcomes as compared to PT-GBD in those patients that not candidates for cholecystectomy. EUS-GBD should be the procedure of choice provided that the expertise is available after a multi-disciplinary meeting. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy. Trial registration number NCT02212717

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes and pathological findings of transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TPUSPB) and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) in a secondary referral hospital. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 100 TPUSPBs and 100 TRUSPBs performed in our centre. Pre-biopsy patient parameters (eg, patient age, clinical staging, serum prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level, prostate size, and PSA density), as well as pathological results and 30-day complication and readmission rates, were retrieved from the patients' medical records and compared between the two groups. Results: One hundred TPUSPBs performed from January 2018 to May 2018 and 100 TRUSPBs performed from January 2016 to April 2016 were included for analysis. Mean age did not significantly differ between the groups. The TPUSPB group had a higher mean PSA level, smaller prostate size, and higher PSA density, compared with the TRUSPB group. The overall prostate cancer detection rate was similar between the TPUSPB and TRUSPB groups (35% vs 25%, P=0.123). There were no significant differences between the groups in prostate cancer detection rates after stratification according to PSA density and clinical staging. With respect to complications, no patients developed fever in the TPUSPB group, while 4% of patients in the TRUSPB group had fever and required at least 1-week admission for intravenous antibiotic administration. Conclusion: For prostate biopsy, TPUSPB is safer, with no infection complications, and has similar prostate cancer detection rate compared with TRUSPB.