Duodenitis: a reliable radiologic diagnosis?

The authors performed a retrospective study of 50 patients with endoscopically diagnosed duodenitis who had undergone double-contrast upper gastrointestinal (GI) examinations. Duodenitis was diagnosed on the original radiographic reports in six of 37 patients (16%) with mild-to-moderate duodenitis, five of 13 patients (38%) with severe duodenitis, and 11 of 50 patients (22%) with all grades of duodenitis on endoscopy. Subsequent analysis of the films revealed one or more radiologic signs of duodenitis (including folds more than 4 mm in thickness, mucosal nodularity, bulbar deformity, and erosions) in 18 of 37 patients (49%) with mild-to-moderate duodenitis, eight of 13 patients (62%) with severe duodenitis, and 26 of 50 patients (52%) with all grades of duodenitis on endoscopy. In a separate part of the study, the authors identified another 20 patients with radiographically diagnosed duodenitis who had undergone endoscopic examinations. Nine of those 20 patients (45%) had duodenitis on endoscopy. Subsequent analysis of the films revealed one or more signs of duodenitis in 17 patients from this group. Nine of the latter patients (53%) had duodenitis on endoscopy. Using established radiologic criteria for duodenitis, our rate of false-positive and false-negative radiologic diagnoses still was about 50%. Thus, the double-contrast upper GI examination is a relatively unreliable technique for diagnosing duodenitis.     

Duodenitis

In 211 bulboscopies 108 normal findings, 29 duodenal ulcers, 44 cases of scar bulb, 4 times erosions of the bulb and 26 times a bulbitis alone (macroscopically) were found. The macroscopic findings duodenitis were confirmed histologically in 85%, the macroscopic findings normal bulbous mucous membrane only in 30% of the cases. In patients with the histological findings duodenitis the bulbous mucous membrane was endoscopically regarded as normal in 70% of the cases. Patients with duodenitis more frequently have an antrum gastritis and less frequently a corpus gastritis than a control group corresponding to age without any macroscopic changes at the stomach and duodenal bulb. On account of its clinico-therapeutic importance is referred to the fact to demarcate the peptic corrosive bulbitis (bulbitis with bulboscopically probable lesion) from the bulbitis without bulboscopic lesion.     

Duodenitis in stomach diseases--a quantitative histologic study

The coincidence of gastric diseases and chronic duodenitis has been investigated on biopsies and preparations of stomach and duodenum by a quantitative histologic method. The histologic classification of duodenitis was made according to Whitehead et al. 9 of 40 patients with a chronic atrophic gastritis had a duodenitis grade 1. 10 of 40 patients with a chronic gastric ulcer had a duodenitis grade 1 and one patient grade 2. 14 of 40 patients with a gastric cancer had a duodenitis grade 1. By statistical investigations it has been found out that patients with an ulcer or cancer do not have duodenitis more often than patients with gastritis. A possible duodenitis concerning the investigated gastric diseases is mainly due to the chronic gastritis that also could be proved by all patients suffering from ulcer or cancer.     

Duodenitis.

Many questions regarding duodenitis remain unanswered. However, the evidence suggests that duodenitis is a clinical entity which can give rise to dyspepsia and, on rare occasions, gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Conventional and double contrast radiology has only a small part to play in the diagnosis of duodenitis but is important in helping to exclude other lesions such as duodenal ulcer. Provided care is taken during the fibre-optic visualization of the duodenal bulb, the endoscopic appearances of moderately severe duodenitis correlate well with the histological changes seen. A diagnosis of apparent duodenitis should be confirmed by the histological criteria described. Treatment at present is similar to that of peptic ulcer, with the withdrawal of any predisposing and precipitating factors such as aspirin, alcohol and smoking. Antacids may relieve the symptoms. It is not yet known what effect these measures may have on the duodenitis as opposed to the symptoms of dyspepsia. The H2-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, should be effective in treating duodenitis but double blind clinical and endoscopic studies are required to confirm this. The place of surgery is as yet undefined. With the data at present available, it appears that duodenitis is part of the pathophysiological spectrum of the duodenal ulcer diathesis rather than a separate disease. It may represent both the production and healing phases of duodenal ulceration. In some patients the duodenal mucosa may proceed from normal to duodenitis and then to normal again without the development of frank duodenal ulceration (Figure 4). Prospective studies are required which should include a long-term clinical follow-up of a large number of patients with duodenitis accurately and specifically diagnosed by endoscopy and histopathology.     

Is Duodenitis Always a Peptic Disease?

Acid secretory behavior as well as gastrin levels were evaluated in 38 cases of chronic duodenitis. Basal HCl secretion was normal in 39% of cases, hypochlorhydria was observed in 29%, and hyperchlorhydria in 32%. Maximal acid output was normal in 71% of patients with duodenitis, decreased in 19%, and increased in 10%. Fasting serum gastrin was always within normal limits. The secretory behavior correlated with age but not with the histological pattern of duodenal mucosa. In chronic duodenitis, normal secretion or hypochlorhydria is the prevailing finding. This does not exclude the possibility of a peptic pathogenetic mechanism which could be involved in the rare cases of chronic duodenitis with hyperchlorhydria. Acid-peptic disease is not etiopathogenetic in the causation of most cases of chronic duodenitis.     

Phlegmonous Duodenitis Complicating Multiple Myeloma: A Successfully Treated Case

A patient receiving chemotherapy for multiple myeloma suddenly developed an acute abdomen, fever, and neutrophil leukocytosis. At laparotomy, the distal two-thirds of the duodenum was swollen and hemorrhagic and was surgically excised. The specimen displayed an acute phlegmonous (suppurative) duodenitis with submucosal and transmural acute inflammation and edema despite an intact mucosa. Blood cultures grew Group B, beta-hemolytic streptococci and gram-positive cocci were present histologically. The patient recovered uneventfully following the surgery and a course of broad spectrum antibiotic therapy. This case illustrates that localized suppurative intestinal infection should be considered when immunosuppressed patients present with an acute abdomen, and that aggressive surgical and antibiotic therapy is warranted.