Skip to main content
Download PDF

Does previous gastrectomy history affect the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BMC Surgery volume 23, Article number: 318 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This current study aimed to explore whether gastrectomy history influenced surgical outcomes while undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to April 29, 2023. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted to assess the quality of included studies. The mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables, and the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous variables. RevMan 5.4 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seven studies enrolling 8193 patients were eligible for the final pooling up analysis (380 patients in the previous gastrectomy group and 7813 patients in the non-gastrectomy group). The patients in the gastrectomy group were older (MD = 11.11, 95%CI = 7.80–14.41, P < 0.01) and had a higher portion of males (OR = 3.74, 95%CI = 2.92–4.79, P < 0.01) than patients in the non-gastrectomy group patients. Moreover, the gastrectomy group had longer LC operation time (MD = 34.17, 95%CI = 25.20–43.14, P < 0.01), a higher conversion rate (OR = 6.74, 95%CI = 2.17–20.26, P = 0.01), more intraoperative blood loss (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 0.59–3.32, P < 0.01) and longer postoperative hospital stays (MD = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.38–1.76, P < 0.01) than the non-gastrectomy group.

Conclusion

Patients with a previous gastrectomy history had longer operation time, a higher conversion rate, more intraoperative blood loss, and longer postoperative hospital stays than patients without while undergoing LC. Surgeons should pay more attention to these patients and make prudent decisions to avoid worse surgical outcomes as much as possible.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was a standard treatment of gallbladder disease including symptomatic cholecystolithiasis, especially the acute cholecystitis [1]. Compared with open cholecystectomy (OC), studies showed that LC had a mild incision, shorter postoperative hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and more enhanced recovery [2,3,4]. However, previous upper abdominal surgery history might increase the conversion rate from LC to OC [5], which was considered a relative contraindication in the past decades [6,7,8].

Gastrectomy was the main treatment for gastric cancer, including distal, total, proximal, and partial gastrectomy [9,10,11]. Some studies have demonstrated that patients with a previous gastrectomy history had an increaseed incidence of cholecystolithiasis [12, 13]. However, after the primary gastrectomy surgery, the peritoneal adhesion might increase the difficulties for the second LC surgery [14, 15].

There existed an argument about whether previous gastrectomy history affected the surgical events while patients undergoing LC. Some studies revealed that previous gastrectomy increased the conversion rate while undergoing LC [16,17,18,19]. However, others reported opposite [20, 21]. Therefore, the purpose of this current study was to evaluate the effect of a previous gastrectomy history on the surgical outcomes in patients who underwent LC.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement [22]. The registration ID of this study on PROSPERO was CRD42023465540, and the link washttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023465540.

Search strategy

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to April 29, 2023. The search strategy included “gastrectomy” and “laparoscopic cholecystectomy”. In terms of gastrectomy, we used “gastrectomy” OR “stomach resection” OR “gastric resection” OR “stomach surgery” OR “gastric surgery” to expand the search scope. As for “laparoscopic cholecystectomy”, we used “laparoscopic cholecystectomy” OR “laparoscopy cholecystectomy”. The two main items were combined with “AND”, and the search scope was limited to “the Title and Abstract”. The search language was restricted to English, and two authors conducted this search independently.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1), Studies that identified patients who underwent LC; (2), Studies that divided the LC patients into the gastrectomy group and the non-gastrectomy group; (3), Studies which compared the surgical outcomes between the two groups. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1), Incomplete data about the surgical outcomes; (2), Case reports, case series, letters to the editor, comments, conferences, and reviews.

Study selection

According to the Inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selection procedure was performed by two authors, respectively. First, the duplicated studies among the three databases would be excluded. Second, the titles and abstracts were screened for eligible studies. Then, the full texts were assessed for final analysis. Disagreements were solved by the third author.

Data collection

The baseline information, including the identified studies and the identified patients, were extracted by two authors, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the included studies were as follows: first author, year of publication, country of study, study date, sample size, and study type. The patients’ information included age, sex, and gallbladder status et al. The surgical outcomes including the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, and postoperative hospital stays were also collected.

Quality assessment

The quality assessment of the included studies was conformed to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [23]. A study with nine points represented high-quality. A study with seven to eight points was considered middle-quality, and a study with less than seven points was defined as low-quality.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables including age, operation time, and postoperative hospital stays were calculated by the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous variables. The heterogeneity of identified research was evaluated by the I2 value. The I2 > 50% indicated high heterogeneity, and the random effects model was adopted, and P < 0.1 was considered statistical difference. The fix effects model was used when the I2 < 50%, which represented low heterogeneity, and P < 0.05 meant statistically significant. The funnel plot was used to assess the publication bias. The RevMan 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) was performed for this data analysis.

Results

Study selection

Totally, 529 studies were identified according to the search strategy (120 studies in PubMed, 241 studies in Embase and 168 studies in the Cochrane Library). 100 duplicated studies were excluded initially. Then, the titles and abstracts of the 429 studies were screened, and 21 studies were left for full-text screening. After the full-text screening, seven studies [16,17,18,19,20,21, 24] were identified for final analysis. No more eligible studies were found by reviewing the reference of the included seven studies. The flow chart of study selection was shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of study selection

Full size image

Baseline information of included studies

A total of seven studies including 8193 patients were identified for this study. The publish dates of these studies were from 2008 to 2021. The regions of these studies included Japan (three studies), China (two studies), Korea (one study) and Canada (one study). Six of them were retrospective studies and one was designed prospectively. More baseline information and the NOS score were shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Summary of characteristics between gastrectomy group and non-gastrectomy group

Age, sex, gallbladder status, intraoperative biliary injury, and postoperative complications were showed in Table 2. The results showed that patients in the gastrectomy group were older (MD = 11.11, 95%CI = 7.80–14.41, P < 0.01) and had a higher portion of males (OR = 3.74, 95%CI = 2.92–4.79, P < 0.01) than the non-gastrectomy group. Moreover, the gastrectomy group had a higher portion of common bile duct (CBD) stone (OR = 3.67, 95%CI = 2.58–5.20, P < 0.01), bile leakage (OR = 19.00, 95%CI = 5.44–66.41, P < 0.01), and wound infection (OR = 11.23, 95%CI = 3.75–33.67, P < 0.01) than the non-gastrectomy group.

Table 2 Summary meta-analysis of comparison between gastrectomy group and non-gastrectomy group
Full size table

Surgical details and outcomes

Operation time, conversion rate, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stays were compared between the different groups. After pooling up analysis, we found that the gastrectomy group had longer LC operation time (MD = 34.17, 95%CI = 25.20–43.14, P < 0.01), a higher conversion rate (OR = 6.74, 95%CI = 2.17–20.26, P = 0.01), more intraoperative blood loss (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 0.59–3.32, P < 0.01), and longer postoperative hospital stays (MD = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.38–1.76, P < 0.01) than the non-gastrectomy group (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot showing the surgical-related information. a Operation time, b Conversion, c Blood loss, d Postoperative stay

Full size image

Sensitivity and publication bias

Repeated meta-analysis was performed by excluding each study at a time, and no significant difference was found in each outcome. To evaluate the publication bias, the funnel plot was conducted, and no obvious bias was found (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel plot of the included studies

Full size image

Discussion

This study identified seven studies including 8193 patients. In terms of baseline information, the gastrectomy group were older and had a higher portion of males than the non-gastrectomy group. As for the surgical outcomes, we found that the gastrectomy group had longer operation time, a higher conversion rate, more intraoperative blood loss, and longer postoperative hospital stays.

Comparing the traditional OC, LC had a milder incision, earlier recovery of bowel function, and shorter postoperative hospital stays [25, 26]. However, previous upper abdominal surgery might affect the surgical procedure for the second LC [27, 28], which was considered as a relative contraindication in the past [29]. Gastrectomy was an indication for some gastric diseases, including gastric cancer, gastric ulcer, gastric perforation et al. [30,31,32]. Some research demonstrated that previous upper abdominal surgery correlated with poor surgical outcomes while undergoing LC [29, 33], but there existed a controversy for the previous gastrectomy.

A retrospective study enrolled 2235 patients and revealed that patients with a previous gastrectomy history were associated with a higher conversion rate while undergoing LC surgery [18]. Some other research also found similar result [16, 17, 19]. However, Sasaki et al. [21] reported that there was no significant difference between the patients with and without previous gastrectomy in conversion rate. The same conclusion was also found by Zhang et al. [20]. As for the postoperative hospital stays, Sasaki et al. [19] and Zhang et al. [20] claimed that patients with a previous gastrectomy history didn’t prolong their postoperative hospital stays, which was opposite of other research [16,17,18, 24]. One of the most usual reasons for converting from LC to OC was that the previous gastrectomy history might lead to adhesions [34, 35]. If there were some important organs adhering to the LC surgical area, inserting trocars might injury the important organs, which led to a high conversion rate [36, 37]. Therefore, a thorough preoperative examination is necessary, especially for patients with previous gastrectomy [38,39,40].

To our knowledge, this pooling up analysis was the first one to compare the surgical outcomes between patients with and without a previous gastrectomy. However, some limitations still existed in our study. First, six of the included studies were from Asia, and one was from North America, which might lead to a region restriction. Second, the sample size was relatively small. Third, the information on patients combining with CBD stones was incomplete. Therefore, more detailed studies were needed for further exploration.

In conclusion, patients with a previous gastrectomy history had longer operation time, a higher conversion rate, more intraoperative blood loss, and longer postoperative hospital stays than patients without it while accepting LC. A thorough preoperative examination and comprehensive evaluation were necessary.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Tazuma S, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:276–300. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00535-016-1289-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coccolini F, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015; 18: 196–204. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.083.

  3. Warchalowski, L. et al. The Analysis of risk factors in the conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17207571.

  4. Keus F, Gooszen HG, Van Laarhoven CJ. Systematic review: open, small-incision or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29:359–78. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03894.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murata A, et al. Effects of additional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer based on a national administrative database. J Surg Res. 2014;186:157–63. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jss.2013.09.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tang B, Cuschieri A. Conversions during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: risk factors and effects on patient outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:1081–91. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.gassur.2005.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Agrusa A, et al. Role and outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the elderly. Int J Surg. 2014;12(Suppl 2):S37–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lengyel BI, Panizales MT, Steinberg J, Ashley SW, Tavakkoli A. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: what is the price of conversion? Surgery. 2012;152:173–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.surg.2012.02.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang B, Liu XY, Cheng YX, Tao W, Peng D. Factors associated with hypertension remission after gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;14:743–53. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4240/wjgs.v14.i8.743.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tao W, Cheng YX, Zou YY, Peng D, Zhang W. Aorta calcification increases the risk of anastomotic leakage after gastrectomy in gastric cancer patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2021;13:3857–65. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2147/CMAR.S306942.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng YX, et al. The outcome of young vs. old gastric cancer patients following gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. BMC Surg. 2021; 21: 399. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-021-01401-1.

  12. Manatsathit W, Leelasinjaroen P, Al-Hamid H, Szpunar S, Hawasli A. The incidence of cholelithiasis after sleeve gastrectomy and its association with weight loss: a two-centre retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2016;30:13–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.03.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng YX, et al. Impact of preoperative type 2 diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of gastric cancer patients following gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9: 850265. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fsurg.2022.850265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamada T, et al. One-stage fluoroscopy-guided laparoscopic transcystic papillary balloon dilation and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis who previously had undergone gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Asian J Endoscopic Surg. 2021;14:193–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/ases.12845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hashimoto M, et al. Treatment of biliary tract stones after gastrectomy in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23:703–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/jhbp.393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee DH, Park YH, Kwon OS, Kim D. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with previous upper midline abdominal surgery: comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after gastric surgery and non-gastric surgery using propensity score matching. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:1424–32. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00464-021-08427-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamamoto H, Hayakawa N, Yamamoto T, Momiyama M, Nagino M. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with a previous history of gastrectomy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2013;60:443–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5754/hge12348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harino T, et al. Surgical outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with a history of gastrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020;31:170–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/sle.0000000000000855.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fraser SA, Sigman H. Conversion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy after gastric resection: a 15-year review. Can J Surg. 2009;2009(52):463–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang MJ, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with history of gastrectomy. JSLS. 2016; 20: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4293/jsls.2016.00075.

  21. Sasaki A, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with a history of gastrectomy. Surg Today. 2008;38:790–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00595-007-3726-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350: g7647. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1136/bmj.g7647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang M, Zhang T, Peng C. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with previous gastrectomy. J Invest Surg. 2013;26:96–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3109/08941939.2012.701369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Utsumi M, et al. C-reactive Protein-to-Albumin ratio predicts conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. In Vivo. 2023;37:887–93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.21873/invivo.13157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Magnano San Lio R, et al. Preoperative risk factors for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 20, doi:https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph20010408.

  27. Johnson T, Hooks W, Adams A, Hope WW. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic access in a surgical training program. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:17–20. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/sle.0000000000000218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Law WL, Lee YM, Chu KW. Previous abdominal operations do not affect the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:326–30. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00464-004-8114-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sapmaz A, Karaca AS. Risk factors for conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single center experience. Turk J Surg. 2021;37:28–32. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.47717/turkjsurg.2020.4734.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dang J, et al. Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications, prevalence, and safety. Obes Surg. 2023;33:1486–93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11695-023-06546-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Tokunaga M, et al. Does age matter in the indication for laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy? J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1502–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11605-008-0567-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shiraishi N, et al. Indication for and outcome of laparoscopy-assisted Billroth I gastrectomy. Br J Surg. 1999;86:541–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01083.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang M, et al. Clinical analysis of treatment strategies to cholecystocholedocholithiasis patients with previous subtotal or total gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg. 2018; 18: 54. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-018-0388-1.

  34. Sönmez S, Akselim B & Karaşin SS. The effectiveness of preoperative diagnostic methods in predicting intra-abdominal adhesions before repeat cesarean section delivery. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2023; 69: e20221455. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/1806-9282.20221455.

  35. Vernamonti JP, Lotakis DM, Hartman H, Dougherty D, Jarboe MD. Ultrasound assessment of abdominal adhesions in neonates: data over dogma for re-operative timing. Pediatr Surg Int. 2023;39:143. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00383-023-05430-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Park J, et al. Prevention of Intra-Abdominal adhesions using the combination of Mediclore® and a Statin. Eur Surg Res. 2022;63:123–31. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1159/000519708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Martel G, et al. Technique for salvage ERCP with gastric bypass anatomy and severe intra-abdominal adhesions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23:263–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1089/lap.2012.0346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guo T, et al. Surgical methods of treatment for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis: six years’ experience of a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:4903–11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00464-021-08843-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ke Z, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2003;2:576–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kurumi Y, Tani T, Hanasawa K, Kodama M. The prevention of bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the point of view of anatomic variation. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2000;10:192–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all the authors whose publications are referred in our article.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xin-Peng Shu and Ze-Lin Wen are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Xin-Peng Shu

  2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing, 402160, China

    Ze-Lin Wen

  3. Department of Pathology, College of Basic Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Qing-Shu Li

  4. Molecular Medicine Diagnostic and Testing Center, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Qing-Shu Li

  5. Department of Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Qing-Shu Li

Authors
  1. Xin-Peng Shu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ze-Lin Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qing-Shu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Protocol/project development: Qing-Shu Li and Xin-Peng Shu; Data collection or management: Xin-Peng Shu and Ze-Lin Wen; Data analysis: Xin-Peng Shu and Ze-Lin Wen; Manuscript writing/editing: Xin-Peng Shu and Ze-Lin Wen. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing-Shu Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests..

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shu, XP., Wen, ZL. & Li, QS. Does previous gastrectomy history affect the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy?. BMC Surg 23, 318 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-023-02237-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-023-02237-7

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us