Submited on: 01 Jan 2013 08:24:02 AM GMT
Published on: 01 Jan 2013 11:22:26 AM GMT
 
Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 21 Feb 2013 05:36:22 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper reports complications in single patient resulting from a laparscopic cholecystectomy. The reported complications have been previously described.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. The complications have been previously decribed as documented in the referrences cited by the authors.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, but one case provides little insight in to the scope of the problem.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes, but once again, one case provides little insight in to the scope of the problem.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No protocol.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No methods in this case report.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A review of a series of laparscopic cholecystectomy performed at the institution with regard to complications encountered.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    This paper reports a single case of complications follow ing laparscopic cholecytectomy.  The report is not novel and shares information that is already well-known in the medical literature.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Experienced hepatobiliary and laparscopic surgeon.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy[Review of the article 'Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Shenoy V].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002527
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review for Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 30 Jan 2013 10:08:32 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Authors report a case report of  a complication of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation and stone spillage resulting in an abdominal wall fistula.  This is an important contribution to individual case reports which relate to handling of biliary complications.  The authors do not claim this as a novel case report.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    1. Retroperitoneal Abscess Formation as a Result of Spilled Gallstones during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Unusual Case Report.

    Chatzimavroudis G, Atmatzidis S, Papaziogas B, Galanis I, Koutelidakis I, Doulias T, Christopoulos P, Papadakis G, Atmatzidis K, Makris J.

    Case Rep Surg. 2012;2012:573092. doi: 10.1155/2012/573092. Epub 2012 Nov 26.

    2. Spilled gallstones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Papasavas PK, Caushaj PF, Gagné DJ.
    J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002 Oct;12(5):383-6.

    PMID:12470414 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Related citations

    3. [Parietal abscess revealing a lost gallstone 8 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy].
    Bouasker I, Zoghlami A, El Ouaer MA, Khalfallah M, Samaali I, Dziri C.
    Tunis Med. 2010 Apr;88(4):277-9. French.

    PMID:20446264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Free Article

    Related citations

    4. [Abscess formation due to lost stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy].
    van der Lugt JC, de Graaf PW, Dallinga RJ, Stassen LP.
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005 Nov 26;149(48):2683-6. Dutch.

    PMID: 16358619 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Related citations

    5. Complications of spilled gallstones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case report and literature overview.
    Helme S, Samdani T, Sinha P.
    J Med Case Rep. 2009 Jul 24;3:8626. doi: 10.4076/1752-1947-3-8626.

    PMID: 19830235 [PubMed]

    Free PMC Article

    Related citations

    6. The outcome of unretrieved gallstones in the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis.

    Memon MA, Deeik RK, Maffi TR, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr.

    Surg Endosc. 1999 Sep;13(9):848-57. Review.

    PMID: 10449837 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    N/A


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    N/A


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes, this is a simple case report.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A more substantial literature review would have made the paper quite novel.  This is an important occurrence in gallbladder surgery which occurs quite often, and there is little information on long term outcomes.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This paper is very good for a case report, however, no outstanding, per se.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Pending: Meta-analysis of Robotic Single Incision vs Multiport Cholecystectomy. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review for Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy [Review of the article 'Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Shenoy V].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002474
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Case of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Complication
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 29 Jan 2013 02:17:38 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The authors review a case of intraperitoneal abscess and persistent sinus of the abdominal wall after 2m of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an 63 year old man.  The case report highlights the possible rare long term complications of  spilled gallstones following laparoscopic cholecystectomy.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    NA


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is interesting for the hepatobliary tract surgeons


  • Other Comments:

    The percentage they comunnicate for gallbladder perforation (20%) and gallstone spillage  (6%) is based on evidence published more than ten years ago (Brockmann JG, Surg Endosc.2002; Hui TT, American Surgeon 1999; Brockmann JG). I would stronly suggest to update these data, since with the experience and training of the surgeons on this technique and with the technology available these days, these numbers should be lower. I would also suggest to encourage the use of the preventive methods you mention at the end with numberr available, perhaps at your own center, about outcome and long term complications in patients in whom, for example, endobags were used vs not

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I rate the article as a general physician and a scientist

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Case of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Complication[Review of the article 'Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Shenoy V].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002471
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Well Known, but rare Complication
Posted by Mr. Naga Venkatesh Jayanthi on 29 Jan 2013 07:03:34 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claims that spilled gasll stones at Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy may result in complications. This is well recognised, but occurs rarely.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    NA


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    This is a case report of a solitary case of abscess from a spilled gall stone at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. While I agree that all the stones should be retrieved when spllt, complications from this are few and far between. However, the complication rate increases in emergency lap cholecystectomies for cholecystitis. 

     

    Furthermore, looking at the CT scan, I believe the abscess could have been adequately dealt by either laparoscopic approach or radiological drainage instead of a laparotomy.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a Consultant Surgeon and perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy and other advanced laparoscopic procedures.

  • How to cite:  Jayanthi N .Well Known, but rare Complication[Review of the article 'Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Shenoy V].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002468
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper illustrates and emphasies the  complication of spilled gallstones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute symptoms.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Sporadic reports exist of similar complications. The time limit, though is short.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA Case report


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Not outsatnding.  It is useful to report, though that one of the preventable causes of spilled gallstones is the poor quality of the retrieval bags which tend to rupture eaasily.


  • Other Comments:

    The paper lacks a comment on the increaased complication rate during acute surgery and ways to  remedy.

     

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    i am a proponent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the acute phase. No competing interest to declare

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy : A timely reminder[Review of the article 'Late Complications of Spilled Gallstones During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ' by Shenoy V].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002430
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse