N. Bozeman4 on December 2, 1880, successfully removed from a woman forty-one years old a pancreatic cyst weighing, with its contents, twenty and a half pounds. In this instance also the operation was undertaken for the removal of a supposed ovarian tumor, the diagnosis not being established until after the abdomen was opened.
4 New York Medical Record, Jan. 14, 1882.
PERITONITIS.
BY ALONZO CLARK, M.D., LL.D.
Italian physicians in the later years of the seventeenth century and in the early ones of the eighteenth had acquired some knowledge of the symptoms of the disease we now call peritonitis, but known to them as inflammation of the intestines. Indeed, it is claimed by some of the admirers of Hippocrates that there are passages in his writings that indicate some knowledge of the disease. But this claim will probably be always received with many doubts as to its validity.
In confirmation of the first statement I will transcribe certain passages from Morgagni's thirty-fifth letter: In inflammation of the intestines "Albertini had observed the pulse to be low and rather weak, such as you will find it to have been in general in the foregoing letter under Nos. 9, 11, 18, and 25." He also observed the abdomen to be tense and hard, the face and eyes to have something unusual in their appearance. "Medical writers, indeed, agree in the tension of the abdomen, but they add many other symptoms, which prove beyond a doubt the intestines to be inflamed; yet they mean that evident inflammation which all may easily ascertain, and not that obscure disorder which we now speak of, and which few suspect" (gangrene of the intestines). "By the same writers it is also supposed that there is an obstinate costiveness and continual vomiting."
Morgagni refers to the assistance rendered by Albertini, Valsala, Van Swieten, Rosa, and others in elucidating this subject. It is singular, considering the clearness of his perception of the symptoms of inflammation of the intestines, that he should be so greatly confused regarding gangrene and sphacelus of the same parts. He looks on these as the result of inflammation, and when the two classes of cases are considered and compared, the result is a contrast and not a resemblance. Yet he supposes that the differences are to be accounted for by the different modes in which the same disease may be developed in different persons.