Gallstones turned up on a scan but they barely bother me. Do silent gallstones actually need removing?

Bit of a strange one so bear with me. I went in for an ultrasound for something completely unrelated (kidney, long story, all fine) and the report casually mentions THREE gallstones sitting in my gallbladder. Nobody had ever suggested I had them. I have never had one of those famous attacks people describe, maybe the odd bloated evening after a big greasy dinner but honestly who doesn't.

My GP was very relaxed and basically said we leave them unless they start causing trouble. Which sounds reasonable until 2am when I'm reading forums full of people who ignored theirs and ended up in A&E with an infected gallbladder or a stone stuck somewhere it shouldn't be. So now I can't tell if my GP is being sensible or if I'm sitting on a ticking clock.

So my actual question: is it genuinely safe to just leave gallstones that aren't hurting me? Or am I meant to be pushing for them to come out before they turn nasty? I don't want surgery I don't need but I also don't want to be the cautionary tale.

Try not to spiral. Mine were found the exact same way, a scan for something else, and I carried them around quietly for about six years before they ever gave me grief. Six years of normal dinners. Loads of people have stones and never know.

The thing that changed for me was when they went from silent to actually announcing themselves, and believe me you will know the difference. Until then my GP took the same watch and wait line yours is taking and it was the right call.

Different camp here. Mine were not silent, they were putting me on the floor after fatty meals, proper gripping pain under the right ribs for an hour or two at a time. Once you are getting those attacks the maths changes and they took mine out by keyhole. But that is the key word, ATTACKS. If yours are genuinely quiet I would not be volunteering for an operation.

The short version first, then the reasoning. Stones that cause no symptoms are usually left alone, and stones that are causing genuine attacks are usually treated. Your GP is following the mainstream position, not fobbing you off.

Some numbers to anchor it. Gallstones are common, roughly 10 to 15% of adults in Western countries have them, and about 80% of those are silent, found by chance exactly as yours were, causing nothing. Left alone, silent stones only rarely go on to cause a problem, which is why the balance of a real operation under general anaesthetic against a small background risk usually favours leaving them. The picture flips once stones become symptomatic: from that point people carry roughly a 1 to 4% per year risk of a complication such as a blocked duct, inflammation or pancreatitis, and that steady yearly risk is the reason symptomatic stones are generally removed rather than watched. The site's explainer on silent gallstones sets out where that line sits, and whether you actually need your gallbladder out covers the symptomatic side.

A few things worth naming precisely. "Symptomatic" does not mean a vague bloated evening after a curry, which is common in people without stones at all; it means the recognisable biliary attack, a severe gripping pain high in the right upper abdomen lasting minutes to hours, or one of the harder events like a fever with the pain or yellowing of the skin. There are a handful of exceptions where a surgeon may suggest removing even silent stones, judged case by case, so this is not an absolute rule. And on the hope people always ask about next: dissolving tablets exist but work slowly, suit very few people and the stones commonly come back, so they are not a general escape from surgery. What none of this can tell you is what to do with your particular gallbladder. Take the question, not a decision, to a surgeon who can see your scan and examine you.

Just to add a lived data point, I had mine out three weeks ago and mine were the loud kind. The bit that stuck with me from the surgeon was almost word for word what is said above, it is the attacks that tip the decision, not the stones showing up on a picture. If yours are quiet that is genuinely good news.

Thank you all, this is the first thing that has actually calmed me down. I went back and asked my GP the "what counts as symptomatic" question directly and got a much clearer answer, and we are leaving them under a watch and wait plan with a clear list of what would change that. Sitting a lot easier now knowing silent and symptomatic are two different conversations.