Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 1422  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Articlesmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact
 :: Next article
 :: Previous article 
 :: Table of Contents
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::  [PDF Not available] *
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  Introduction
 ::  Case report
 ::  Discussion
 ::  References

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

Year : 1981  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 248-50

Foreign bodies in the biliary stones : (a case report).

How to cite this article:
Zarger H U, Hussain A A, Ahmed M N, Mir M A, Khan G M. Foreign bodies in the biliary stones : (a case report). J Postgrad Med 1981;27:248

How to cite this URL:
Zarger H U, Hussain A A, Ahmed M N, Mir M A, Khan G M. Foreign bodies in the biliary stones : (a case report). J Postgrad Med [serial online] 1981 [cited 2023 May 31];27:248. Available from:

  ::   Introduction Top

Various types of foreign bodies have been found forming the nidus of the biliary calculi. Foreign bodies like ova of ascaris, suture materials, tomato skins, rolled up plums and hair pins forming the nidus of biliary stones have been. reported by various authors.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] Although, a previously inadequate operation is undoubtedly the main aetiological factor in residual choledocholithiasis, there have been scanty reports about the stones being formed around unabsorbable suture material.[3], [6] Two cases of the same nature were also reported by Mackie et al.[4]
We also found a coiled up suture material forming the nidus of a mixed common bile duct calculus.

  ::   Case report Top

A 54 year old male was admitted to the surgical ward with complaints of colicky pain in the upper abdomen and jaundice, of six months' duration. There were no symptoms of vomiting, dyspepsia or fever. There were also no symptoms suggestive of chronic peptic ulcer. Past history revealed that the patient was operated upon 3 years ago when cholecystectomy with choledochostomy was done. General physical examination revealed jaundice in an averagely built patient. The systemic examination revealed no organomegaly or ascites. There was mild tenderness on deep palpation in the right upper quadrant but no lump was palpable. Haemogram showed haemoglobin of 10 gm per cent, total leukocytic count of 9500/, erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 1 mm after one hour by Wintrobe's method. Differential leucocyte count showed polymorphs 72 per cent, lymphocytes 27 per cent and eosinophils 1 per cent. Urine analysis was normal. Liver function tests showed serum bilirubin to be 2.8 mg per cent, total proteins 6.3 gm%, albumin 4 gm%, globulin 2.3 gm% and serum alkaline phosphatase 30 K.A. Units. Plain skiagram of the abdomen showed no radio-opaque shadow. Intravenous cholengiogram was nonconclusive. The patient was explored under general anaesthesia. The stomach, duodenum, liver and rest of the viscera were normal. Common bile duct was dilated and thickened and a big stone was felt towards its upper end. The duct was explored and the stone removed. There was a coiled up suture material found attached to the stone. [Figs. 1] & [Fig. 2]. Distally, the duct was patent. A T-tube was put in. The post-operative period was uneventful. T-tube was removed on the 8th post-operative day and the patient was discharged on the 12th post-operative day. He has been regularly attending the follow-up clinic without any further complication for the last 31 years.
The stone weighed 15 gm and measured 3 cm x 2 cm. The chemical analysis of the stone showed it to be constituted of cholesterol and bilirubin.

  ::   Discussion Top

A residual stone in the common bile duct following cholecystectomy is a distressing but potentially avoidable complication. The reports of recurrent calculi in the bile duct following operation such as cholecystectomy and choledochostomy are not uncommon but there have been sporadic reports of recurrent calculi forming around the unabsorbable suture material. The formation of true common bile duct stone around such suture material has been reported by Homans[3] and Mackie et al.[4] There is no unanimous opinion about the use of suitable suture material for ligating the cystic duct during cholecystectomy or the suture material used while exploring the common bile duct. However, Maingots and Rob and Smithe recommended the use of catgut whereas Gardham and Davies,[3] Rains[6],[7],[8] and Farghuarson[1] advocated the use of unabsorbable suture material.
In our patient, the common bile duct was explored at the time of first surgery and the suture material used was silk for ligating the cystic duct, catgut was used after the exploration of the common bile duct. For cystic duct transfixation, braided silk was used as the duct was quite dilated. The suture material had got introduced into the lumen of the duct and after some time cholesterol and pigment possibly had aggregated around it and thereby promoted the formation of a stone over the nidus of the unabsorbable suture (silk thread). As evident from the scarcity of such reports in the literature, stone formation around the nidus formed by unabsorbable suture material is most unusual. It is amazing that the suture material could not pass harmlessly into the doudenum in spite of the fact that there was no obstruction or stenosis at the sphincter of Qddi at the time of second exploration of the common bile duct.
The chemical examination of the stone revealed that the stone was of a mixed type. This can be explained by the fact that pigment and cholesterol had aggregated around the suture material. Thus the use of absorbable suture material for biliary tract surgery cannot be overemphasized.

  ::   References Top

1.Farquharson, E. L : "Text Book of Operative Surgery." 4th Edition, Livingston, Edinburgh, 1969, p. 594.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Gardham, A. J. and Davies, D. R.: "The Operations of Surgery". Churchill, London, 1963, p. 420.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Homans, J.: Ann. Surg., 26: 114, 1897. Quoted by Mackie et al (1973).[4]  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Mackie, D. B., Haynes, S. and May, R. E.: Unabsorbable suture material: A rare cause of recurrent stones in the common bile duct. Brit. J. Surg., 60: 23-24, 1973.   Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Maingot, R.: "Abdominal Operations." Vol. 1, Butterworths, London, 1969, p. 919.   Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Rains, A. J. H.: Gall stones: An introduction to research into causes and remarks on some problems in treatment. Lecture delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 4th October, 1960. Ann. Roy. Coll. Surg. Eng., 29: 85-101, 1961.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Rains, A. J. H.: "Gall Stones: Causes and Treatment." Heinemann, London, 1954, p. 176.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Rains, A. J. H., Capper, W. M., Knight, G., Cleland, W. P. and Freeman, M. A. R.: "Baily and Love's Short Practice of Surgery." 15th Edition, H. K Lewis and Co. Ltd., London, 1971, p. 84 &.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Rob, C. and Smith, R.: "Operative Surgery." Butterworths, London, 1969, p. 404.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Smith, R. and Sherlock, S.: "Surgery of The Gall Bladder and Bile Duct." Butterworths, London, 1964, p. 119.   Back to cited text no. 10    

Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 12th February '04
2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow