Detailed examination of this case showed extreme errors in the position sense. For example, pricking the foot might be localized as pinching above the knee. The cremaster reflex was extremely marked and would appear upon even slight excitation of any part of the lower extremity, even at times when the patient declared he felt nothing. These phenomena at the beginning early gave place to a syringomyelic type of anesthesia.
At the time of report, July 29, 1915, Froment regarded this case as analogous to hematomyelias of divers, although there is not such a degree of decompression; the suddenness of the decompression is more marked in these Shell-shock cases than in divers.
Shell explosion; bowled over; loss of consciousness: Hemiplegia with reflex signs thought to be organic; hypertensive spinal fluid; LYMPHOCYTOSIS.
Case 204. (Guillain, August, 1915.)
A corporal in the engineers was going the night of June 7th to a creneau of mitrailleuses, when he was bowled over by a bursting shell. He lost consciousness and was carried to the cantonment by his comrades. Next morning he complained of headache and pain in the back; had a convulsion; and proved on examination to have a left-sided hemiplegia. He was given the diagnosis of hysterical hemiplegia.
He was sent to the 6th Army neurological center, and there showed a complete left-sided hemiplegia with tendency to contracture. The left knee-jerk and arm reflexes were exaggerated, and there was ankle and patella clonus with Babinski sign. There was a dysesthesia on the left side, with wrong interpretation and poor localization of painful stimuli, and non-recognition of cold and heat sensations. Muscle sense and stereognosis were impaired. There was a slight dysarthria. Lumbar puncture yielded a clear hypertensive fluid with a slight lymphocytosis.
The situation remained without change for a month, when the patient was evacuated to the rear. Thus, a shell-burst can produce destructive nerve lesions without evidence of external injury.
Re hypertensive spinal fluid, Sollier and Chartier cite Dejerine as having brought the proof of hypertension in the cerebrospinal fluid in Shell-shock cases. They also believe that the Shell-shock hysteria is built up on a physical basis, more or less after the model of Charcot’s hysterotraumatism. Shock, windage, and gas may bring about the same kind of result. They rely especially on the cases of Sencert ([201]) and Ravaut ([202]) for their argument (1915). They recall the fact that Charcot found a hysteria due to lightning stroke and to high tension electric accidents. They quote Lermoyez as attributing like results in ear cases to labyrinthine shock, tympanic rupture, and ear hemorrhages.