Codex @codex  0

Translation. Just as this great narrowness of the blood vessels, particularly in a body of this kind, had perhaps been the beginning of all the diseases, so I do not doubt that the hardness of the pancreas, and still more that of the duodenum, was the cause of the vomiting. For whether that portion of the intestine is constricted by compression, as Riolan long ago observed, whom you will see cited here in the Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet, or whether, because its coats are scirrhous, it is quite unable to contract, these opposite causes are followed by the same effect: since the contents about to descend from the stomach are either less readily received or less readily propelled onwards, most of them remain in the stomach, and there, either becoming corrupted or simply troublesome and oppressive through their delay, provoke vomiting. The distinguished Molinelli has also published a clear example of this. The same thing must happen when the pylorus is affected by defects of the same kind.

You have very many examples here in the Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet, as in Observations XI and XVII and most of the others following almost as far as XXVI, and again in LVI, §13; in the Additions, in Observations I and VIII; and indeed elsewhere, as in Book I, Section IX, not only in Observation XXXIV but also, if you attend to those “upturnings”, in XXXIII. Among those which you will read in this Section VIII, when you come to Observation XXI, not very unlike another supplied by Johannes Bohn, and find there that vomiting of all food and finally death within ten days followed blockage of the pylorus by a small silver coin which had been swallowed, you will undoubtedly recall that much larger silver coin which the skilful surgeon du Luc successfully dislodged from that place and indeed out of the body. He did so with other aids, but especially with mercury: pressing it onwards by its gravitational weight and reducing it by amalgamation, as the chemists call it, when pains near the pylorus had already begun, with an urge to vomit (the printed laevi at this point is unclear).

The central inference is that different impairments of passage can produce the same vomiting. The author is Giovanni Battista Morgagni; the extract corresponds to Book III, Letter XXX, article 13 of The Seats and Causes of Diseases Investigated by Anatomy by Giovanni Battista Morgagni. The opening haec, “this”, points back to an anatomical case preceding the selected extract. The translation preserves the difference between the tentative claim fortasse, “perhaps”, about the narrow blood vessels and the stronger non dubito, “I do not doubt”, about the cause of vomiting. It does not convert either level of historical confidence into a present-day demonstrated diagnosis. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The two mechanisms are not contradictory observations. Compression can narrow the entrance to the duodenum; hard, poorly contracting intestinal coats can fail to propel their contents onwards. Both impede gastric emptying, allowing retained material to provoke vomiting. This is an early example of connecting clinical observation with pathological anatomy. Nevertheless, gross hardness, described as scirrhous, does not by itself supply a modern microscopic diagnosis of scirrhous carcinoma. The descriptive term scirrhous hardening is therefore kept distinct from that modern category. The separate assertion about the pancreas likewise cannot identify its precise disease from this extract alone.

The Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet is an earlier compilation of anatomical observations. Its cited observation numbers are retained because they are part of the argument's trail of evidence, including the distinction between Section VIII and the additional cross-reference to Book I, Section IX. Subversiones literally means “upturnings”; in this context the reference concerns disturbances or upheavals of the stomach, not a political meaning. Ventriculus here is the stomach, not a cardiac heart ventricle. The printed word laevi near the end is grammatically unclear in its context; the translation gives the secure surrounding sense and does not silently assign it a patient's identity, an anatomical side, or a new causal claim. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The coin episode reports an attempted mechanical and chemical remedy, not a modern recommended treatment. In the text, mercury is supposed both to press the coin onwards through its gravitational weight and to reduce it by amalgamation with its silver. The report does not establish the contribution of each mechanism, the extent of the coin's alteration, or therapeutic safety. Its purported success should not be generalized from a historical anecdote. Modern toxicological information distinguishes the chemical forms of mercury and their routes of exposure: swallowed liquid metal is poorly absorbed, whereas vapour is readily absorbed and can cause serious harm. This distinction neither validates the historical intervention nor warrants the false correction that any swallowed metallic mercury must immediately produce systemic poisoning. ^[ref]

Modern investigation also separates obstruction from impaired movement. Endoscopy uses a flexible instrument with a camera to inspect the upper digestive passage for structural abnormalities; a gastric emptying scintigraphy test instead follows a meal containing a small radioactive tracer with an external camera. These examinations illustrate how the proposed impediment to passage can now be tested rather than inferred from vomiting alone. They are later developments, not techniques available to the author of this passage. ^[ref]

The guide is the diagnosis and the physiological cost of persistent vomiting, not the symptom alone. Establish whether material is truly vomited, search for local and extra-gastric causes, correct depletion and then treat the cause. A distinction between vomiting, passive regurgitation and rumination syndrome prevents several different disorders being forced into one category. First assess inability to retain fluid, weight loss, dehydration, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe abdominal pain or distension and neurological signs. Significant danger requires prompt investigation and support before a prolonged trial of symptom remedies.^[ref]

The history should establish duration, relation to meals, retained undigested food, pain, nausea, the character of the material, bowel function, weight change, pregnancy possibility and exposure to drugs or ethanol. Delayed large-volume vomiting of food with weight loss suggests retention, but does not distinguish gastric outlet obstruction from impaired emptying by itself. Early postprandial discomfort, haematemesis or an abdominal mass changes the investigation. Bilious vomiting with distension and failure to pass stool raises concern for gastrointestinal obstruction. Headache, visual disturbance or focal neurological signs directs attention beyond the stomach; kidney disease, metabolic disturbances and pregnancy are also possible causes. None can be chosen as the diagnosis from the short source question alone.^[ref]

An 1867 physician could already distinguish suspected gastric ulcer, chronic gastritis, cancer, obstruction near the pylorus, pregnancy-related vomiting, uraemia and “sympathetic” vomiting accompanying disease elsewhere. The therapeutic reasoning was to remove a provoking dietary or medicinal cause, adapt food to what could be retained, investigate an obstructive or destructive lesion and address the associated systemic disease. Symptom suppression alone could conceal continued starvation. A 1867 digest reproduces an account of opium controlling vomiting in advanced consumption. It establishes an example of period palliation, not proof of cure and not a general prescription for chronic vomiting.^[ref]

Modern investigations are chosen by that differential: examination and appropriate blood tests for depletion or systemic disease, a pregnancy test where relevant, endoscopy for a suspected upper digestive lesion, and imaging when gastrointestinal obstruction is possible. Gastroparesis specifically means delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction. After excluding obstruction, demonstrate abnormal emptying rather than diagnosing it from vomiting alone. A standardized gastric emptying scintigraphy follows a labelled meal with a gamma camera; serial measurements test how much remains in the stomach. This apparatus addresses a physiological question that simple inspection of vomited food cannot answer.^[ref]

Treatment then branches with the diagnosis. Obstruction needs decompression and treatment of the obstructing lesion; escalating an antiemetic does not remove it. A confirmed peptic ulcer may require Helicobacter pylori eradication, proton pump inhibitor treatment and withdrawal of an ulcer-provoking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug where possible. A suspected malignant lesion needs tissue diagnosis and appropriate specialist treatment.^[ref] In confirmed gastroparesis, smaller suitable meals, nutritional planning, correction of a contributing diabetes problem and selected prokinetic or antiemetic treatment have distinct purposes: an antiemetic may reduce nausea without accelerating gastric emptying. Persistent nutritional failure may require feeding beyond the stomach.^[ref]

Medication-induced vomiting, metabolic disease, pregnancy-related illness and central causes require their own treatment pathways. Fluid and electrolyte losses need assessment and correction throughout. Reassess intake, weight and function as well as the frequency of vomiting. If no structural or metabolic explanation is established, investigate the relevant disorder of motility or gut–brain interaction on positive criteria; “nothing found yet” does not justify either a fabricated diagnosis or a dismissal of the symptom.