Talk:Duodenum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
 

I don't understand=[edit]

I don't understand a word. What is this article about? -- JeLuF

It's part of the digestive system. I made a couple of changes; is it to clearer now? Vicki Rosenzweig

I removed the bit about Greek etymology:

it is derived from the Greek dodekadaktulon

which, although mentioned on certain web sites, is not borne out by the OED. The OED says that duodena means dozen (sc. fingers or inches). There may well be, or have been, a Greek word dodekadaktulon, but it is not the etymon of duodenum. --Heron

dodekadaktulon also appears to mean "twelve fingers." Perhaps this Greek word is the original, and it was translated into its Latin equivalent. --Reuben

btw: the duodenum is referred to be located in the retroperitoneum (secondary retroperitoneal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.196.160 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The duodenum absolutely is retroperitoneal (except the first 2cm), so I changed it. I'm a little disgruntled by how this section is written. Moore's anatomy says it's 25cm long, and this is canon among surgeons (the duodenum, ureter and oesophagus all being 10 inches long). Richardcavell 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone check this sentence: 'Áduodenum is the duodenum of the duodenum in the duodenum' above ==External links==. It makes no sense imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.166.60.20 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing single-length comment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed from the article: "...and is about 18 cm (7 in) long" -- is this for an average northern european adult male? An average teenage Peloponnesian female? +sj + 06:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the situation concerning plicae circularis. Are they occasionally present or absent as i have heard from sepearte sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.130.77 (talkcontribs) 10:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Page needs expansion on what reactions take place here, enzymes used and where the enzymes came from (from someone better qualified then me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.140.179 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Pronunciation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the stress put on the e or on the o? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orthografer (talkcontribs) 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

My teacher says doo-O-DEE-num, but I say du-OD-num. Dictionary.com says doo-uh-dee-nuhm and doo-od-nuhm.
Blindman shady 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Both pronunciations can be considered correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.173.26 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Swollen and inflamed duodenum[edit]

Section on Methotrexate[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 12 November 2008, User 207.62.208.2 added a block of text talking about Methotrexate and intestinal lesions. This section doesn't really flow right and clearly doesn't belong in the paragraph it was added to, nor in the section on the function of the duodenum. I'm not even sure if it belongs in this article at all. It looks as if it was copy-pasted from some other source, but Google come up empty (other than Wikipedia related hits). The user 207.62.208.2 seems to have been editing lots of medically related pages, and he has been warned a couple of times on his talk page. But I really don't have enough medical knowledge to evaluate anything about his contribution, other than reading it as a lay person.

For the time being, I have moved this contribution to a seperate section. Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Duodenum and Type II Diabetes[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"It is most likely that one of the digestive additives produced by the Duodenum on entry of food in to it (or a secondary product) is absorbed by the jejunum and ileum and spread into the body instead of passing through the digestive system. The presence of those chemicals causes the muscles to exhibit insulin resistance and ultimately Type 2 Diabetes. Identification of these chemicals may lead to a cure for Type 2 Diabetes."

This section does not seem to be grounded in correct anatomical knowledge and is misleading. First, the phrase digestive "additives" made by the duodenum is misleading; these "additives" are present during every feeding event. Second, even if said additives or the vague "secondary product" are absorbed at the jejunum or ileum, they do not bypass the digestive system as implied; rather, this is the purpose of the digestive system. Almost all substances absorbed in the small intestine (duodenum + jejunum + ileum) go to the hepatic portal system, through the liver where metabolism and many other things happen, and then to the rest of the body. However, the way this is written, it says that the duodenum adds things the digestive tract that then bypass the digestive tract and somehow cause diabetes. Wallball 7 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would love to see the basis for this statement. It sounds rather far-fetched, but I've been surprised many times before. A peer reviewed reference is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altimmons (talkcontribs) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The end of the passage violates WP:CrystalPB666 yap 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Right or left[edit]

In the 3th part of the duodenum the article says: "The third (inferior/horizontal) part of the duodenum begins at the inferior duodenal flexure and passes transversely to the left, crossing the left ureter, left testicular/ovarian vessels..." I think it should be right ureter and right testiculr/ovarian vessels because the duodenum is on the right and then turns left crossing the right vessels, finally ending on the left part of the body. An Anatomy book in my bookshelf says the same, but i'm not an expert. This should be checked.--Miguelferig (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Duodenal cap[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Too small -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support agree. Can easily be merged, benefitting readers and reducing needless fragmentation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.