The American Journal of Digestive Diseases

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 120–123 | Cite as

Two cases of double gall bladder

  • Meyer Golob
  • John L. Kantor

Comments And Summary

When a clinical diagnosis of a diseased gall bladder has not been verified by cholecystography, the following theoretical possibilities might occur: In the first situation, operation reveals a diseased gall bladder which is removed; an anomaly is not thought of; a supernumerary viscus may still be present, and may be entirely overlooked. If the accessory organ should be diseased the results would be serious. In the second situation, a normal gall bladder is found at operation in its conventional site. Again an anomaly is not thought of. An accessory gall bladder may therefore still be the seat of trouble. The cases of Wischnewsky and Braun demonstrate some of these points; neither case was X-rayed pre-operatively, in both the bladders were separated from each other, one being normal, the other diseased. Fortunately both organs were revealed at operation.

On the other hand, if cholecystography is performed it should be borne in mind that since a diseased gall bladder may coexist with a normal accessory gall bladder, the former may not be visualized, while the latter would reveal a normal sequence.

This finding might lead to a wrong negative diagnosis, with the result that an unsuspected active lesion might be overlooked. In short, the possibility of an accessory gall bladder should always be borne in mind both pre-operatively and post-operatively.


Duodenal Ulcer Gall Bladder Cystic Duct Gall Bladder Disease Scarlet Fever 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boyden, E. A.:Am. J. Roent., 33:689, 1935.Am. J. Anat., 38:177, 1926.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braun, A.:Zentrabl. f. Chir., 53:1055, 1926.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braunschweig, W.: Cholecystographic Demonstration of Double Formation in Man.Roentgenpraxis, 5:594–596, Aug., 1933.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryan, L.: Double Gall Bladder, Case.Radiology, 35:242, Aug.. 1940.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cave, P.: Double Gall Bladder, 2 Cases.Lancet, 1:751–752, April 4, 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Climan, M.: Duplication of Gall Bladder Demonstrated by Cholecystography.Med. J. and Rec., 130:73–74, July 17, 1929.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corachan, M., Figueras, I. and Faixat, F.: Un caso de vejiga biliar doble diagnosticado radiologicamente.Rev. de Cirugia de Barcelona, 4:241–248, Oct., 1932.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Croudace. W. H. H.: Double Gall Bladder: Case.Brit. Med. J., 1:707, April 25, 1931.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garafalo, F.: Double Gall Bladder; Case.Bull. d. Sc. Med., 5:380–385, Sept.Oct., 1927.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graham, et al: Diseases of the Gall Bladder and Bile Ducts. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1928.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gross, R. E.: Congenital Anomalies: Review of 148 Cases with Report of a Double Gall Bladder.Arch. Surg., 32:131–162, Jan., 1936.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayes, R.: Double Gall Bladder; with Double Cystic Duct; Case.Radiology, 16:66–67, Jan., 1931.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrmann, S. F., Hicks, G. S. and Martin, D. L.: Double Gall Bladder; Case.Arch. Surg., 27:905–909, Nov., 1933.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holderman, H. H.: Double Gall Bladder.Ann. Surg., 91:475–477, March, 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennon. R.: Double Gall Bladder Opening by 2 Cystic Ducts Into Common Bile Duct; Case.Brit. J. Surg., 20:522, Jan., 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, A. W.: Double Gall Bladder; Case.Deutsche Ztsch. of Chir., 211:404–405, 1928.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Millbourn. E.: Double Gall Bladder, with Report of 2 Cases.Acta Clin. Scandinav., 84:97–123, 1940.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minim, N. I.: Double Gall Bladder.Vestnik Khir. (Nos. 70–71) 24:261–265, 1931.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pertina, E.: Double Gall Bladder and Double Cystic Duct with Stone in One of Cystic Ducts; Case.Policlinico (Sez. prat.), 37:1416–1417, Sept. 29, 1930.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Priesel, A.: Double Gall Bladder in Man; Case.Vischow’s Arch. f. path. Anat., 265:76–83, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sasmor, D.: Personal communication.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slaughter, F. G. and Trout, H. H.: Duplication of the Gall Bladder, Case Report with a Review of the Literature.Am. J. Surg., 19:124, 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stohr, R.: Pathology of Double Gall Bladder; Case.Zentralbl. f. Chir., 61:2202–2203, Sept. 22, 1934.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stolkin, E.: Double Gall Bladder, Report of a Case and Review of 38.Brit. J. Surg., 27:760–766, April, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 26.
    Wakely, C. P. G.: Double Gall Bladder Removed by Operation.Brit. J. Surg., 15:334–336, Oct., 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    Wilson. C. L.: Double Gall Bladder with 2 Cystic Ducts and 2 Cystic Arteries.Ann. Surg., 110:60–66, July, 1939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    Wischnewsky, A. W.: Double Gall Bladder, Discovered During Operation, (Removal of Diseased Supernumerary Bladder).Arch, f. Klin. Chir., 135:779–781, 1925.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Wolfson, W. L.: Supernumerary Gall Bladder.Am. J. Surg., 6:88–90, Jan., 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1942

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meyer Golob
    • 1
  • John L. Kantor
    • 1
  1. 1.New York

Personalised recommendations