Within twenty-four hours the patient became more tranquil and consciousness became clearer, but the patient was at a loss to bring to memory either recent or remote events. However, he replied to questions, giving some different story each time he was approached. Curiously enough, the patient seemed very contented and good-natured and would even laugh foolishly at times, saying that he felt fine and all ready to go out to work.
The general impression conveyed by Francis Murphy at once suggested the possibility of neurosyphilis. Convulsions, perhaps initial in middle age, with a post-convulsive stupor, followed by a partial clearing up, with persistent amnesia and a suggestion of fabrications with euphoria, bore out the suggestion.
The physical examination strengthened the impression of neurosyphilis. Well developed and nourished, florid, with a manual tremor and sweating of the palms, the patient was in general without physical symptoms. Neurologically, however, whereas the left pupil was larger than the right and reacted properly to light, the right pupil was a bit contracted, somewhat irregular, and either reacted not at all to light or very slightly so (reacting perfectly to accommodation). The knee-jerks could be obtained only with reinforcement, and several other reflexes could not be elicited (triceps, radial, ulnar, periosteal, Achilles, umbilical). Moreover, the heel-to-knee test was poorly performed; some of the common tests phrases were very poorly repeated; there was marked tremor in writing; and the paragraphia seemed to be not merely peripheral, for syllables were left out in words and ordinary words spelled incorrectly (psychographic disturbance).
We do not care here to insist that the right pupil was really an example of the Argyll-Robertson phenomenon since the slightest tinge of doubt is important if a positive diagnosis is practically equivalent to asserting syphilis. Practically, however, the right pupil was regarded as an Argyll-Robertson pupil under hospital conditions (flash-light reaction). Argyll-Robertson pupil, areflexia, speech disorder, writing disorder, memory disorder, conduct disorder, and euphoria, all with a history of convulsions, certainly warranted the tentative diagnosis of neurosyphilis.
As usual, resort was made to the W. R. in the serum and in the spinal fluid. One of the first results to come through from the laboratory was the absence of globulin, normal albumin, negative gold sol reaction, and a cell count of two cells per cmm. in the spinal fluid. Later the W. R.’s were returned negative for blood and spinal fluid.
In the meantime, an illuminating change had occurred in the patient, for two days later,—three days after the first convulsion in the park,—the patient had apparently quite recovered; his consciousness became nearly clear; he could remember every event up to the time of the convulsion, and his memory came back in appropriate degree for both remote and recent events.
The patient, it appeared, had for some time been drinking more and more heavily. In recent days, he had been taking five or six whiskeys and a half dozen beers daily on the average, and often much more. About ten years before, the patient narrated, there had been a convulsion at a ballgame, and this convulsion the patient himself called a “rum fit.”
Here, then, is a case of Alcoholic Pseudoparesis. Without the W. serum test and without the spinal fluid examination, it is probable that the diagnosis of general paresis might have clung to the patient for some time on account of the apparent Argyll-Robertson pupil, which had to be accepted as such on the flash-light data. In point of fact, in this case the pupil later reacted more normally to light, and the speech and writing disorders measurably cleared up.
1. Can alcohol produce the Argyll-Robertson pupil? The majority of neurologists would today answer, Yes.
2. If in the case of Francis Murphy, the W. R. in the blood had happened to be positive on account of a non-neural syphilitic infection (spinal fluid negative), would the diagnosis general paresis be warranted? Probably the diagnosis general paresis would have been made. If the patient had been lost to observation, he might well have been regarded as an atypical paretic with prodromal convulsions.