Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Case Report: Multiple complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with perforation and spilled gallstones [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Дата публикации: 09-07-2026 04:30:54

Abstract Introduction Perforation of the gallbladder is a benign and common complication during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it may result in stone spilling, which potentially can lead to serious postoperative complications. Case report A 70-year-old male underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. The procedure was complicated by perforation of the gallbladder and spilling of gallstones. More than a year after the procedure, the patient developed subcutaneous abscesses containing some of the spilled stones, a computed tomography revealed a complex intraabdominal and intrathoracic fistula with communication from the abdominal cavity to pleura and ultrasonic imaging found a lost gallstone in the thorax. After two years, the patient developed pleural empyema and sepsis secondary to the condition. Presently, the patient awaits surgery for the fistula and empyema. Conclusion Proper care should be taken to avoid stone spilling during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, if perforation and stone spilling occur, all visible stones should be removed during the procedure and the complication should be noted in the medical records. Furthermore, the patient should be thoroughly informed. This may help accelerate diagnosis if the patient later suffers from a complication related to lost stones.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

CROSSMARK_Color_horizontal.svg

Klubien J, Borgersen DW, Rosenberg J and Pommergaard HC. Case Report: Multiple complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with perforation and spilled gallstones [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 5:2322 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9490.3)

Case Report

Revised

[version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Jeanett Klubien1,2Dorte Winther Borgersen3Jacob Rosenberg

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-1086

1,2Hans-Christian Pommergaard4

Jeanett Klubien1,2Dorte Winther Borgersen3Jacob Rosenberg

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-1086

1,2Hans-Christian Pommergaard4

Author details Author details

1 Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
2 Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
3 Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
4 Department of Surgery, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidore, Denmark

Jeanett Klubien
Roles: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dorte Winther Borgersen
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jacob Rosenberg
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Hans-Christian Pommergaard
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract
Abstract Introduction

Perforation of the gallbladder is a benign and common complication during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it may result in stone spilling, which potentially can lead to serious postoperative complications.

Case report

A 70-year-old male underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. The procedure was complicated by perforation of the gallbladder and spilling of gallstones. More than a year after the procedure, the patient developed subcutaneous abscesses containing some of the spilled stones, a computed tomography revealed a complex intraabdominal and intrathoracic fistula with communication from the abdominal cavity to pleura and ultrasonic imaging found a lost gallstone in the thorax. After two years, the patient developed pleural empyema and sepsis secondary to the condition. Presently, the patient awaits surgery for the fistula and empyema.

Conclusion

Proper care should be taken to avoid stone spilling during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, if perforation and stone spilling occur, all visible stones should be removed during the procedure and the complication should be noted in the medical records. Furthermore, the patient should be thoroughly informed. This may help accelerate diagnosis if the patient later suffers from a complication related to lost stones.

Keywords

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, spilled gallstones, lost gallstones, abscess, fistula, empyema, case report

Corresponding author: Jeanett Klubien Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright:  © 2026 Klubien J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Klubien J, Borgersen DW, Rosenberg J and Pommergaard HC. Case Report: Multiple complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with perforation and spilled gallstones [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 5:2322 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9490.3) First published: 14 Sep 2016, 5:2322 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9490.1) Latest published: 09 Jul 2026, 5:2322 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.9490.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

In response to the reviewer's comments, we have revised the Discussion to further address the clinical decision-making, acknowledge the lack of microbiological and antibiotic data as a limitation, and expanded the discussion of the proposed mechanism of fistula formation.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Emre Gonullu
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Gabriel Sandblom
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Tatsuhiro Masaoka

Introduction

Perforation of the gallbladder during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a well-known and common complication (8–40%)1 that may lead to intraabdominal spilling of gallstones and some of the spilled stones may not be retrieved despite all efforts. The incidence of lost stones during LC is less frequent and varies in the literature from 0.1 to 20%.13 Although considered a benign complication, it is reported that 0.03–8.5% of the lost stones will lead to a postoperative complication.2,3

We present a case of multiple complications after perforation of the gallbladder and subsequent stone spilling during LC. This case report is reported according to the CARE statement.4

Case report

A 70-year-old Caucasian male, with a medical history of hypertension, was admitted in March 2014 after four days of diffuse abdominal pain and fever up to 39°C. A computed tomography (CT) scan identified multiple gallstones in an inflamed gallbladder. To verify the diagnosis, abdominal ultrasonic imaging confirmed multiple gallstones and thickening of the gallbladder wall as signs of acute cholecystitis. The patient underwent acute LC with the intraoperative finding of a severely inflamed gallbladder. In addition, the procedure was complicated by perforation of the gallbladder, and gallstones were spilled. The gallbladder was removed using an endoscopic bag after complete dissection to prevent further stone spilling, and all visible stones were removed. Lastly, the peritoneal cavity was irrigated with saline to retrieve any additional gallstones. The complication was noted in the medical records.

One year after the procedure, the patient was admitted with tenderness in the right upper quadrant. A CT was performed and showed a swelling in the upper right part of the abdominal wall and between the liver and the lower lobe of the right lung with calcifications at both sites assumed to be lost gallstones ( Figure 1). The patient did not receive any treatment for the swellings.

189a88b1-d998-4529-ae99-66bc2a2af5f8_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Timeline.

An overview of the patient’s hospital contacts and procedures after the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. s.c. subcutaneous, dxt. dexter, CT computed tomography, MGUS monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, ATN acute tubular necrosis.

During the period between 15 and 18 months following the LC, the patient returned to the hospital two times due to subcutaneous abscesses below the right rib curvature and the right side of the lower back. The suspected lost gallstones were assumed to have migrated to the subcutaneous tissue causing abscess formation. The diagnosis was confirmed by CT and compared with the previous CT ( Figure 2). Both abscesses were located deep in the subcutaneous tissue and due to location and size, these were treated with ultrasound-guided incision and drainage. Additional information regarding bacterial culture or antibiotic treatment were, unfortunately, not retrieved from the patient’s medical record. During these procedures, four gallstones were located and removed from the abscess cavities. Afterwards, the patient was followed as an outpatient because of daily secretion from the abscess cavity on the patient’s back. Because of the unhealed abscess cavity, CT and ultrasound scans were performed 18 months after the LC. The CT revealed a complex intraabdominal and intrathoracic fistula with external opening in the lower right side of the back with communication to pleura. The ultrasonic imaging revealed a lost gallstone in the lower right side of thorax. The fistula was treated conservatively with drainage.

189a88b1-d998-4529-ae99-66bc2a2af5f8_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Abdominal computed tomography.

An abdominal computed tomography showing spilled gallstones at different levels 15 months after the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (dotted arrows). (a) Shows a gallstone behind the liver and (b) shows a gallstone in the abdominal wall.

In February 2016, the patient was admitted to the hospital because he had developed sepsis and pleural empyema secondary to the condition. The patient had a short stay in the intensive care unit and was discharged from the hospital after one month. During this month, the patient developed monoclonal gammopathy and acute tubular necrosis due to the infection in the fistula. After hospitalization, the fistula was rinsed daily with saline solution, and during one of these procedures, another gallstone was excavated. Presently, the patient awaits surgery for the fistula and empyema.

Discussion

This case is an example of serious complications caused by spilled gallstones. Migration of lost stones, as in this case, can cause both local and systemic complications. However, stone spillage is unavoidable in some patients despite precautionary measures.

The spilled stones may be harmless, but efforts should be made during the procedure to locate and remove all stones to prevent future local and systemic complications. Retained gallstones in the peritoneal cavity may over time cause a local inflammatory reaction, leading to abscess formation. Persistent inflammation may result in erosion into adjacent tissues and subsequent fistula formation. This is a rare complication after LC, but has been reported previously, including bronchobiliary and colonic fistula formation.5,6 The postoperative complications due to lost gallstones may develop weeks to several years after the primary procedure and are not necessarily located in the right upper quadrant.2,7,8 Together with a lack of awareness or documentation in the medical records, this may contribute to a delayed diagnosis of a stone complication. However, delayed diagnosis may also be due to the fact that some gallstones are not visible on CT. Predisposing factors for complications of the spilled gallstones include older age, male sex, perihepatic localization of lost stones, acute cholecystitis, spilling of pigment stones compared with cholesterol stones, multiple stones (>15 stones), and large stone size (>1.5 cm).1

It is not mandatory to convert to open surgery for retrieving stones after perforation has occurred during LC,3,8 due to a subsequent low incidence of severe postoperative complications2,3 and since conversion to open surgery is associated with a higher rate of systemic complications compared with laparoscopic surgery.3 In this case report, the surgeon chose not to convert to open surgery to look for more lost gallstones, which goes well in hand with the recommendations found in the literature.3,8 However, proper care should be taken to avoid stone spilling and thereby possible postoperative complications. All visible stones should be removed during the laparoscopic procedure and the gallbladder should be retrieved in an endoscopic bag upon dissection to prevent further stone spilling when a perforation has occurred.9 In this case, the gallstones were found on CT before complications developed. In most cases, retained gallstones remain clinically silent. In this case, the retained gallstones were identified on CT one year after laparoscopic cholecystectomy; however, as the patient was asymptomatic, conservative management was chosen, given the low incidence of clinically significant complications and the morbidity associated with reoperation. With hindsight, earlier intervention may have altered the subsequent clinical course.

A limitation of this case report is that microbiological findings, including bacterial cultures, isolated organisms, and details of antibiotic treatment, could not be retrieved from the patient’s medical records. These data would have provided additional and relevant insight into the infectious course and management of this patient.

In conclusion, stone spillage is an unavoidable and well-known problem to LC. If perforation and stone spillage occur, it should be noted in the medical records and the patient should be thoroughly informed about the lost stones and their possible postoperative complications. This may help the clinicians and accelerate the diagnosis if the patient later on suffers from a complication due to lost stones.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images and/or other details that could potentially reveal the patient’s identity.

Author contributions

JK, DW, JR, and HCP conceived the study. JK and HCP prepared the first draft of the manuscript. DWB, JR and HCP did the revision and all authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Data availability

No data availability associated with the manuscript.

References
  • 1.  Brockmann JG, Kocher T, Senninger NJ, et al.:Complications due to gallstones lost during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2002; 16(8): 1226–1232. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 2.  Zehetner J, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W:Lost gallstones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: all possible complications. Am. J. Surg. 2007; 193(1): 73–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Schäfer M, Suter C, Klaiber C, et al.:Spilled gallstones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A relevant problem? A retrospective analysis of 10,174 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Surg. Endosc. 1998; 12(4): 305–309. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 4.  Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, et al.:The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. J. Med. Case Rep. 2013; 7: 223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 5.  Guruvaiah N, Ponnatapura J:Bronchobiliary fistula: a rare postoperative complication of spilled gallstones from laparoscopic cholecystectomy. BMJ Case Rep. 2021; 27: 14. Publisher Full Text
  • 6.  Alzuabi A, Anam W, Alblooshi M, et al.:Spilled but Not Forgotten: A Retained Gallstone Leading to Colonic Fistula Formation. Cureus. 2025; 14: 17. Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Hougård K, Bergenfeldt M:Abdominal fistula 7 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ugeskr. Laeger. 2008; 170(36): 2803. PubMed Abstract
  • 8.  Hillingsø JG, Kristiansen VB:Abscess in the right flank—a late complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ugeskr. Laeger. 1999; 161(32): 4520–4521. PubMed Abstract
  • 9.  Demirbas BT, Gulluoglu BM, Aktan AO:Retained abdominal gallstones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 2015; 25(2): 97–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2016

Comment

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

Published: 09 Jul 2026, 5:2322

Published: 13 May 2026, 5:2322

Published: 14 Sep 2016, 5:2322

Copyright

© 2026 Klubien J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 09 Jul 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 10 Jul 2026

Emre Gonullu, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey 

Approved

VIEWS 0

References

1. Demirbas B, Gulluoglu B, Aktan A: Retained Abdominal Gallstones After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2015; 25 (2): 97-99 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Gastrointestinal Surgery

Close

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 13 May 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 23 Jun 2026

Emre Gonullu, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

  • Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?

    Yes

  • Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?

    Partly

  • Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?

    Yes

  • Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?

    Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Gastrointestinal Surgery

Close

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2016

Reviewer Report 10 Oct 2016

Tatsuhiro Masaoka, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Close

Reviewer Report 26 Sep 2016

Gabriel Sandblom, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Close

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2016

Comment

Open Peer Review
Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved
The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved
Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Reviewer Reports
Invited Reviewers
1 2 3
Version 3
(revision)
09 Jul 26
read
Version 2
(revision)
13 May 26
read
Version 1
14 Sep 16
read read

  1. Gabriel Sandblom, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

  2. Tatsuhiro Masaoka, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

  3. Emre Gonullu, Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey


Comments on this article

Sign up for content alerts


Browse by related subjects

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Impact of bladder repair on postoperative outcomes in the surgical management of colovesical fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]0704-08-2026
2The Outcome of Cardiac Hydatid Surgery in The Iraqi Center of Heart Diseases : A Retrospective Case-series Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]0716-06-2026
3Live tracking reveals how robotic surgery impacts surgeon stress011.8106-08-2026
4Andalusian health service to compensate child's family for serious post-colonoscopy complications016.904-06-2026
5Case Report: Primary Cutaneous Aspergillosis in a Neutropenic Child with Pulmonary Dissemination: A case report [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]04.8202-06-2026
6Marbella hospital patient awarded compensation for hernia treatment malpractice that left her with amputated fingers and toes08.0516-06-2026
7Yellow eyes, dark urine, and more: Gastroenterologist explains the hepatitis symptoms that need immediate attention06.9403-08-2026
8Prediction of Crowd Behavior in Holy Sites: Psychological, Social, and Risk Perception Factors among Pilgrims  [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]07.4822-07-2026
9Gastroenterologist Dr Anurag Shetty shares early and advanced symptoms of liver diseases that should not be ignored05.5302-08-2026
10Источник: в Хакасии вертолет при посадке повредил стойку шасси0020-08-2020

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.83. Источник: f1000research.com.