gallstones

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

njuz - 21 Sep 2006 20:22 GMT

Hello,

i kindly ask for the advice. Three weeks ago my friend ended in ER - acute
pancreatitis caused by gallstones. Pancreas was healed, and through
ultrasound 3 cholesterol gallstones (5mm) were detected. Doctors suggested
laparoscopic surgery in two months. He is 36 years old and doesn't really
fit into any gallstone risk group. Is the surgery really necessary?
Unfortunately, internet provides lots of contradictory informations
confusing us completely. It seems that risks after the operation are more or
less equal to risks if leaving the gallbladder in the body. What would you
suggest? How dangerous is to wait? What are the chances of chronic
pancreatitis in case of refusing a surgery? The problem starts in liver -
does the surgery deals with causes or only the consequence? Can complete
change of lifestyle (balanced diet without fats and other nutritients that
are causing problems to liver) ease the situation.

Thanks for any suggestion.

Anka

Reply to this Message

Howard McCollister - 21 Sep 2006 22:17 GMT

> Hello,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> and other nutritients that are causing problems to liver) ease the
> situation.

Yes, gallbladder surgery is necessary for your friend. He is at risk for a
repeat episode of gallstone pancreatitis, which is dangerous, potentially
fatal.

Doing the gallbladder operation 2 months from now is old-fashioned, and
generally unwise. His gallbladder should have been removed right away, as
soon as his pancreatitis resolved.

The risk of complications from leaving the gallbladder and its gallstones in
VASTLY exceeds the risk of the gallbladder operation. Change of diet, change
of lifestyle will have no effect in reversing his problems.

HMc

Reply to this Message