Skip to main content
Log in

The significance of cystic duct stones encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Cystic duct stones (CDS) are occasionally encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). They may be noticed during the dissection of the cystic pedicle or seen to extrude from the cystic duct (CD) when it is divided or opened to perform the intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC). The procedures for dealing with CDS range from the simple removal of stones that fall out when the duct is opened to incising the duct over an impacted stone to facilitate its removal or converting to open surgery due to a large stone in a CD adherent to the bile duct (e.g., Mirizzi syndrome). Therefore, we set out to establish criteria that might be predictive of CDS, to examine the technical problems caused by them, to look for the most effective ways of avoiding adverse consequences, especially the risk of missing bile duct stones.

Methods

We performed a review and analysis of a database that included preoperative, operative, and postoperative data for all patients treated at our hospital who were found to have CDS.

Results

In a series of 520 LC performed over a period of 5 years, 64 cases of CDS were documented (12.3%). The preoperative risk factors in 45 of these cases (70.3%) were recent sever acute pain with or without liver function test (LFT) derangement (34.3%), jaundice (14%), pancreatitis (14%), and previous acute cholecystitis (7.8%). At operation, a single stone was found in the CD in 64% of the cases; multiple stones were found in 36%. Dissection of the pedicle was difficult in 21 cases and had to be carried out fundus-first in four cases. The CD was reported to be wide in 18 cases; five of them eventually needed to be closed with endoloops. Operative difficulty was reported in three of 19 cases where there were no preoperative risk factors. Simple removal of the stones was possible in most cases. CDS needed be crushed, the CD incised, or the procedure converted to open in only five cases (7.8%). IOC was attempted in all cases; it was normal in 39 (61%) and failed in two cases (3%). Eighteen patients (28%) were found to have bile duct stones; another five (7.8%) had CBD dilation or debris indicating possible recent passage of stones. Fourteen transcystic and nine direct bile duct explorations were performed.

Conclusion

Some CDS may slip from the gallbladder into the CD or the CBD during dissection. Careful retraction and manipulation should therefore be done to minimize this risk. Most CDS are easy to deal with, but some of them can result in increased operative difficulty. If IOC is not carried out on a routine basis, it becomes mandatory if CDS are encountered because ≤35% of them may be associated with bile duct stones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, Croce E, Lacy A, Toouli J, Faggioni A, Ribeiro VM, Jakimowicz J, Visa J, Hanna G (1999) EAES multicentre prospective randomised trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surg Endosc 10: 952–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hauer-Jensen M, Karesen R, Nygaard K, Solheim K, Amlie EJ, Havig O, Rosseland AR (1993) Prospective randomised study of routine intraoperative cholangiography during open cholecystectomy: longterm follow-up and multivariate analysis of predictors of choledochlethiasis. Surgery 113: 315–323

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jansen M, Truong S, Treutner KH, Neuerburg J, Schraven C, Schumpelick V (1999) Value of intravenous cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystecystectomy. World J Surg 23: 693–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keeling NJ, Menzies D, Motson RW (1999) Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct: beyond the learning curve. Surg Endosc 13: 109–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Laing FC, Jeffrey RB Jr (1983) Choledocholithiasis and cystic duct obstruction: difficult ultrasonographic diagnosis. Radiology 146: 475–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mergener K, Clavien PA, Bracch MS, Baillie J (1999) A stone in a grossly dilated cystic duct stump: a rare cause of postcholecystectomy pain. Am J Gastroenterol 94: 229–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nassar AHM, Ashkar KA, Mohamed AY, Hafiz AA (1995) Is Laparoscopic cholecystectomy possible without video technology? Min Invas Ther 4: 63–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paul A, Millat B, Holthausen U, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E (1998) for the scientific committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES] Diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS); results of a consensus development conference. Surg Endosc 12: 856–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Saharia PC, Zuidema GD, Cameron JL (1977) Primary common bile duct stones. Ann Surg 185: 598–604

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shuchleibs S, Chousleb A, Mordragon A, Torices E, Licona A, Cervantes J (1999) Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. World J Surg 23: 698–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Way LW, Admirand WH, Dunphy JE (1973) Management of choledocholithiasis. Ann Surg 176: 347–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Online publication: 13 March 2001

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahmud, S., Hamza, Y. & Nassar, A.H.M. The significance of cystic duct stones encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 15, 460–462 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000375

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000375

Key words

Navigation