Talk:Appendicitis

From Academic Kids

Cause of Appendicitis

The article states that appendicitis is caused by fecal matter getting lodged in the appendix. But the questions remain, "Why does this happen?" and "How can it be prevented?"

Clues to the ultimate cause of this disease come from the field of epidemiology. Although the article doesn't mention it, many other sources on the web state that this is a disease of the Western World, virtually unknown in the developing world.

As with diverticulosis, hemorrhoids, colon cancer, inflammatory bowel disease and others, appendicitis recently emerged toward the end of the 19th century, and only in the Western world. All of these diseases have baffled modern medicine for over a century.

In the past 3 decades "dietary fiber" has been considered the explanation for the epidemiological evidence. But many studies, especially on colon cancer, have torpedoed the fiber theory.

According to kidshealth.org: "There are no medically proven ways to prevent appendicitis. Although appendicitis is rare in countries where people eat a high-fiber diet, experts have not yet shown that a high-fiber diet definitely prevents appendicitis."

There is another cultural difference between the developing world and the developed world which directly pertains to colorectal health, but which has been overlooked by researchers. Most of the world uses the squatting position for excretion and childbirth. This is the method the human body was designed to use, and our deviation from it damages the colon (and other organs) in a number of ways.

Regarding the appendix, the use of sitting toilets causes one to put downward pressure on the ascending colon, which can easily force wastes into the appendix.

My website http://www.NaturesPlatform.com/health_benefits.html explains this process in much greater detail, and gives a historical perspective on this disease that corroborates the theory.

Please have a look at it.

Thanks,

Jonathan Isbit

--65.137.138.82 20:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds highly speculative. If something has been "overlooked" by researchers you will first need case-control studies to detect whether the type of loo people use actually influences their appendicitis risk. For the moment I would not be too eager to have this in the article. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And how do you know appendicitis did not happen before the 19th century? Isn't it interesting that abdominal surgery developed around this time, and that previously the acute abdomen was simply a death warrant without a diagnosis? JFW | T@lk 21:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear JFW,

Thank you for your comments.

To answer your second question, please visit the following site: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_01_020701/hugh/hugh.html

The relevant excerpt from that page follows:

"The epidemiology of appendicitis poses many unanswered questions. Almost unknown before the 18th century, there was a striking increase in its prevalence from the end of the 19th century, with features suggesting it is a side effect of modern Western life. Rendle Short8 and Burkitt1 summarised the rapid emergence of appendicitis in developed countries in the 20th century, and Burkitt noted its rarity in rural areas and in undeveloped countries."

To respond to your first comment, I know that further research is needed. But I believe that I have offered the most plausible hypothesis for a disease that has baffled modern medicine for over a century. An article about a disease that does not address etiology or epidemiology or prevention is incomplete. Presenting the most plausible hypothesis will inspire others to do research. (I am not a doctor, nor am I in a position to get involved with clinical research.)

Sincerely,

Jonathan Isbit --65.137.139.74 15:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that there are unanswered questions, but unless there have been serious studies that investigate your hypothesis, this information would not be suitable for Wikipedia due to limitations on original research. You are free to provide a reference to the Hugh & Hugh editorial in the article. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)