Shell-shock and other neuropsychiatric problems

by Elmer Ernest Southard

According to the new or rather revived pronouncement, these must be due either to definite organic lesion, or to a disorder of reflex origin, connoting the occurrence of changes in the nervous centers as long ago taught by Vulpian and Charcot. In the records of cases and in the discussions thereon this differentiation receives much consideration.

It is held that the paralysis in the reflex cases is more limited, more persistent, and assumes special forms not observable in hysteria. The attitudes in hysterical palsies conform more to the natural positions of the limbs than do those observed in reflex paralysis. Probably the presence of marked amyotrophies in the reflex nervous disorders is the most convincing factor in separating these from pithiatic affections. These atrophies correspond to the arthritic muscular atrophies of Vulpian, Charcot, Gowers, and others, and cannot for a moment be regarded as caused by suggestion or as removable by counter-suggestion or persuasion. They are influenced, discounting the effect of time and natural recuperation, only by methods of treatment designed to improve the peripheral and central nutrition of the patient. Pithiatic atrophies are slight and probably always to be accounted for by disuse or the association of some peripheral neural disorder with the hysteria. Affections of the sudatory and pilatory systems are more definitely pronounced in reflex cases than in those of a strictly hysterical character.

Some of the facts brought forward by Babinski and Froment to demonstrate the differentiation of reflex paralyses from pithiatic disorders of motion are challenged in the records of this volume by others, as for instance, by Dejerine, Roussy, Marie, and Guillain. Babinski tells us that in pithiatism, properly so designated, the tendon reflexes are not affected. He believes that even in pronounced anesthesia of the lower extremities the plantar reflexes can always be elicited and are not abnormal in exhibition. Dejerine, however, produces cases to illustrate the fact that in marked hysterical anesthesia of the feet plantar responses cannot be produced. I have personally studied cases which lend some strength to either contention. In some of these I was not able to conclude that either the use of the will or the presence of contractions in extension was sufficient to exclude the normal responses.

Differences in muscle tonicity, in mechanical irritability of the muscles, and the presence or absence of fibrotendinous contractions are indications of a separation between the reflex and purely functional cases, as apparently demonstrated in some of the case records. True trophic disorders of the skin, hair, and bones observed in the reflex cases are also said to have no place in the illustrations of pithiatism.

The delver into the case histories of this volume will find numerous instructive combinations of hystero-reflex and organo-hysterical associations which are not to be enumerated in an introduction. The great importance of what all recognize as pathognomonic signs of organic disease—Babinski extensor toe response, persistent foot clonus, reactions of degeneration, marked atrophy, lost tendon jerks, etc.—is, of course, continuously in evidence. Extraordinary associations of hysterical, organic, and reflex disorders with other affections due to direct involvement of bone, muscle, and vessels and with the secondary effects of cicatrization and immobilization are brought out on many pages. In quitting this branch of our subject it might be remarked that considerable changes must be made in our textbook descriptions of nervous diseases in the light of the contributions to the neurology of the present war.

One is reminded in the details of some of the cases of the discussions some decades since on the subject of spinal traumatisms; of the work of Erichsen which resulted in giving his name and that of “railway spine” to many of the cases now commonly spoken of as traumatic hysteria and traumatic neurasthenia; of the rejoinders of Page and his views regarding spinal traumatisms; and of Oppenheim’s development of the symptom complex of what he prefers to term the traumatic neurosis. One who has taken part in much court work cannot but read these case records with interest, for the neurology of the war as presented in this volume and in numerous monographs which are now appearing, throws much light upon many often mooted medicolegal problems. I recall how many able and honest neurological observers have changed their points of view since the early days of Erichsen’s “railway spine,” a pathological suggestion which is said to have cost the corporations of England an almost fabulous sum during a score of years. I recall also that a certain Court of Appeals in one of our states even felt itself called upon to promulgate an opinion intended to exorcise entirely the plea for damages for alleged injuries if it could be shown that these were due to fright. The data of this book do not put weapons entirely into the hands of the attorney and the expert for either the plaintiff or the defendant.

Some of the French writers on the neurology of the war, as illustrated in the records collected by Dr. Southard, have brought to our attention distinctions which they draw between états commotionnels and états émotionnels—happy terms, and yet not sufficient in their invention or in the explanations which accompany them, fully to satisfy the requirements of the facts presented. These writers seem to think of the commotional states as denoting some real disease or condition of the brain, and yet one which is really curable and reversible. They explicitly tell us, however, that these commotions fall short of being lésionnel. After all, is this not somewhat obscure? Is it not something of a return to the period of “railway spine” when one of the comparisons sometimes made was that the injury suffered by the nervous tissues produced in them a state comparable to that of a magnet which had been subjected to a severe blow? At any rate, in commotion thus discussed the nervous structures are supposed to sustain some real injury of a physiochemical character, whereas in the emotional states the neurones are, as Southard puts it, affected somewhat after the manner of normal emotional functioning, except perhaps that they are called upon to deliver an excessive stream of impulses. The latter would be classed among the psychopathic, the former among the physiopathic affections, and yet the distinction between the two is not always quite clear.

In not a few instances of Shell-shock—although these are not numerous, so far as records have been obtained—actual structural lesions have been recorded even in cases in which no direct external injury of a material kind was experienced as a result of the explosion of shells. In others the evidences of external injury were relatively unimportant. Various lesions, in some cases recognizable even by the naked eye, were present. Mott, for example, found not only minute hemorrhages, but in one instance a bulbar extravasation of moderate massiveness, the patient not showing external signs of injury. Cases are also recorded of hematomyelia; others with edematous or necrotic areas in the cord; and still others with lesions of the ependyma or even with splitting of the spinal canal, reminding one of the classical experiments of Duret on cerebral and cerebrospinal traumatisms.

It has been argued that too much stress should not be laid on a few cases of this sort—but are they as few as they seem to be? The fact is that necropsical opportunities are not often afforded. May not such scattered lesions often be present without resulting in death or even in long continued disturbance? There is no essential reason why minute hemorrhages into the brain and spinal cord, and especially into their membranes, may not undergo rapid absorption or even remain unchanged for some time without dire results.

One of the reported cases in which lung splitting occurred from severe concussion without external injury is not without interest in this connection, reminding one, as the commentator says, of those cases of severe concussion in which the interior of a building is injured while the exterior escapes. In the same connection also the cited experiments of Mairet and Durante on rabbits are not without instructiveness. As a result of explosives set off close to these animals, pulmonary apoplexy, spinal cord and root hemorrhages, and extravasations, perivascular and ependymal, and into the cortical and bulbar gray were found. Russca obtained direct and contrecoup brain lesions, etc., in a similar way.