After 23 years of exploration and research in China, under the guidance of new thinking theory, the recurrence rate after bile preservation lithotripsy has been significantly reduced through high-tech and new technical means, and the recurrence rate 20 years after surgery has been reduced to less than 10%, breaking the myth that the recurrence rate after bile preservation surgery is extremely high (more than 90%); and unveiling the secret of the so-called extremely high recurrence rate in the past. With the promotion and deepening of biliary preservation technology, more importantly, biliary surgeons were made to realize the importance of the existence of gallbladder function! To understand the need to break out of the misconception of recurrence rate! To realize that the main purpose of treating gallbladder stones and gallbladder polyps is to remove stones and polyps and to preserve the function of the gallbladder and the existence of the gallbladder! The purpose of treating gallbladder disease is not to focus solely on the recurrence rate after gallbladder preservation surgery! This is also the legacy of our late progenitor of general surgery – Academician Qiu Fazu: “Pay attention to the function of the gallbladder, play the role of the gallbladder, and protect the existence of the gallbladder!” . It is important to overcome the paranoid thinking that only attaches importance to recurrence rate and ignores the importance of gallbladder function; the theory of recurrence rate alone is wrong. This is the mainstream of the current traditional gallbladder cutting thinking, and is the main obstacle to the promotion of gallbladder preservation technology! Why not allow recurrence rate after biliary lithotripsy when there is a recurrence rate for any kind of disease in the medical field? Is it right to think that you would rather have a recurrence rate of 0 than the presence of a gallbladder? Which is the most dangerous, bile duct stones or gallbladder stones, preferring to have a recurrence rate of 0, while being able to accept a 15% incidence of post-operative common bile duct stones as a malady? Rather have a recurrence rate of 0 and be able to accept the risk of damage to the common bile duct; Rather have a recurrence rate of 0 and be able to accept the pain of 40% indigestion; What is the purpose of treating gallbladder disease? The patient wants the doctor to cure the gallbladder disease and protect the gallbladder function, you cut the gallbladder away easily, what gallbladder disease to treat! It should be understood: even if a few cases of recurrence after gallbladder preservation, not still benign gallbladder disease, there is no big deal, it is always much less painful than the pain of indigestion brought by cholecystectomy, the potential danger of stones in the common bile duct, the dangerous painful despair caused by bile duct injury, the risk of colorectal cancer and the pain of post-biliary tract syndrome! Why all the fuss! Don’t urologists routinely do organ-preserving lithotripsy for the treatment of stones and polyps in urinary organs? Is the presence of gallbladder stones and polyps the only thing that is dangerous and must be cut? It is unbelievable. Therefore, the theoretical basis for cutting gallbladder is really insufficient and cannot be advocated! The reason for the persistence of this traditional thinking for more than 100 years is related to the limitations of the technology of the time. At that time, there was no electric light, no direct endoscopic supervision of stone extraction, and the so-called choledochostomy was a blind man’s extraction of stones, which could not be completely removed; its so-called recurrence rate was actually mostly a residual rate; although there were many scholars who opposed the extreme practice of removing the gallbladder, the “recurrence rate” could not be reduced, so it encouraged the trend of cholecystectomy. At that time, it was very difficult to diagnose gallbladder stones and very few patients were found to have peritoneal irritation, so it was excusable to remove the gallbladder because it was important to save lives and the desire to preserve the gallbladder was not taken care of. Should they all be removed? In addition, gallbladder stones are a disease of the rich and the incidence of gallbladder stones in the poor and miserable old China was indeed low and was not taken seriously; nowadays, the standard of living has improved and science and technology have developed, requiring a high level and quality of life standard, which should be met as a matter of course. In addition, in the past 100 years, due to the high development of modern medical science and technology, with the passage of the era of biliary cutting, the discovery and understanding of the various ills after biliary cutting, exposed clearly, is that the errors and defects of the theory of biliary cutting should be soberly re-understood. However, the traditional understanding and customary forces of biliary surgery for the treatment of gallbladder stones, which are deeply rooted, are the main resistance to the development of endoscopic biliary preservation techniques. They believe that bile cutting is not negotiable and is the gold standard in the treatment of gallbladder stones. In the past, the recurrence rate after biliary preservation surgery was too high; now the new technology has reduced the recurrence rate to less than 10%, but not! Only when it is reduced to “0” will we stop, of course, only when the gallbladder is removed, the recurrence rate after surgery is bound to be 0! It is common in clinical practice that the gallbladder is routinely removed on the pretext of “convenience” during exploratory bile duct surgery, regardless of whether the gallbladder is diseased or not, as a package for exploratory bile duct surgery. It is not uncommon that gallbladder removal is often used as a scapegoat when the open exploration is negative, so as to muddle through. The main thrust of these fanciful theories is the lack of attention to the existence of the gallbladder function! The gallbladder is considered dispensable! Especially today, with the prevalence of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the indications for cholecystectomy have been relaxed, resulting in a major competition for gallbladder removal! In China, 1 million LC cases are completed each year, not including traditional open cholecystectomy cases, the vast majority of which are killed for nothing because of a few small stones and a few small polyps in the gallbladder. The incidence rate of gallbladder cancer in Shanghai is 3.8 per 100,000 people, so killing 100,000 gallbladders for 3.8 gallbladder cancer cases is not killing the innocent. Is it too much to ask for “save the gallbladder”? Wake up, don’t be blinded to the importance of gallbladder function instead of a few stones and small polyps! These masters of cholecystectomy, under the premise of ignoring the importance of gallbladder function, are concerned with the more cases they cut, the more honorable they are, and the more difficult it is to cut the gallbladder, the more knowledgeable they are; but when it comes to statistics of immediate and long-term side effects after cholecystectomy, they are always evasive in reporting the rate of intraoperative damage to the common bile duct and do not report the truth; especially they do not care about the long-term complications of cholecystectomy, even when patients rush to surgery complaining of Even when patients rushed to the surgery to complain about the pain of severe dyspepsia and reflux gastritis, the masters put all these bad effects of bile-cutting into the hands of gastroenterologists, justified and slipped away. So, the bile-cutting gurus naturally do not feel all the bad effects of bile-cutting, and the consequences of bile-cutting are never thought of! Sad and lamentable! Of course, after bringing down the recurrence rate after biliary preservation surgery, the secret of the so-called extremely high recurrence rate was uncovered, and the theoretical basis of the gold standard of biliary cutting was shaken. Minimally invasive biliary lithotripsy (polyps) is an emerging science and technology that is completely different from the old biliary lithotripsy surgery. After 23 years of exploration and research and practice, we have accumulated rich clinical experience, and there are many new discoveries and technologies, especially the patented technology with Chinese independent patent rights, which is unique in China. New understanding of gallbladder disease, new understanding of gallbladder function, such as: the treatment technology of gallbladder sediment-like stones – choledochoscope lithotripsy adsorber; new discovery of interstitial stones; classification of the morphological types of gallbladder stones, and pointed out that the kind of stones are more likely to recur; research on the causes of gallstones; high magnification electron microscopy of gallstones and bile Chinese testes. The re-conceptualization of traditional methods of evaluating good or bad gallbladder function; imaging, gallbladder contraction work, and white bile; the establishment of norms and promotion guidelines for biliary conservation surgery; and the development and development of rigid choledochoscopy and ultrasonic choledochoscopy, etc. Endoscopic minimally invasive biliary preservation technology is a real advanced science and technology with infinite vitality, which is welcomed by the majority of patients. More and more biliary surgeons accept this new viewpoint and new thinking, so endoscopic biliary preservation technology spreads rapidly and is watertight. In 2007, 2009 and 2011, three National Endoscopic Biliary Surgery Congresses were held, with inscriptions by academician Qiu Fazu, the progenitor of surgery in China; inscriptions by Professor Ran Ruitu, the predecessor of surgery; academician Huang Zhiqiang, the master of biliary surgery in China, attended the Congress and gave a lecture; leaders of the general surgery and biliary surgery groups personally came to the Congress to guide. In addition, the Chinese Association of Endoscopists also established the Endoscopic Biliary Committee, and formulated the specifications of endoscopic biliary lithotripsy technology and treatment technology routine. We also organize relevant experts to write papers and publish them in famous domestic journals and write biographies. This has enabled the majority of biliary surgeons to have evidence to rely on and to be effective, which has brought the development of endoscopic minimally invasive biliary technology to a new stage and ushered in a new era of endoscopic minimally invasive biliary preservation.