Struck in back by shell splinter: Crural monoplegia; absence of plantar reflex.
Case 385. (Paulian, February, 1915.)
An infantryman, 20, was struck by a shell fragment in the small of the back while lying in the firing position, about 2 P.M. August 22, 1914, at Eth in Belgium. He felt as if he had been struck by the butt of a gun in the lumbar region. He was unable to get back with his comrades. His sack had been cut. He was without ammunition, and getting to a bridge he was able to jump a distance of about 8 meters. He fell and fainted. On coming to himself, his left side felt bad and he could not move his left leg. He dragged himself to the relief post which was being bombarded just as he arrived, and he got a bullet in the left frontal region.
He was evacuated to another ambulance and decided to go back to France. Supported by his Lieutenant, he walked all night making about 35 kilometers on foot. He arrived at Charancy and got by train to Mont-Midi. On alighting, he could not walk. He said he was bent in two, and shuffled on in this position.
The “bent-back” lasted about a month, when he began to stand up again. He passed through various hospitals and was evacuated to the Salpêtrière. He then walked with the left leg in extension on the thigh and the foot in external rotation. He was hardly able to stand on either foot, and especially fell if he tried to stand on the left foot. He made no resistance to passive movements of the left lower extremity. The reflexes were normal except that the left plantar reflex was abolished. On the right, the plantar reflex was normal, and an attempt to elicit this reflex was followed by strong defensive movements. There was a tactile, thermic, and pain anesthesia of the foot and leg as far up as the lower third of the thigh. Above this anesthesia, there was a zone of hypesthesia. Position sense was also abolished in this region, and there was a bony hypesthesia likewise. A slight muscular atrophy (2 cm.) affected the lower leg and thigh.
There were no hereditary or acquired features of importance in the case except that there had been at 14 a chorea for a year. In particular this man appears not to have been an emotional person.
The point in the case is the abolition of the plantar reflex on the left side, in association with a functional paraplegia and hemianesthesia.
Re plantar reflex modification in hysteria, Babinski believes that the same law which holds that hysteria is not in line to alter either the tendon reflexes or the pupil reflexes, is true for the skin reflexes. Dejerine brought forward three cases which appeared to him, however, to demonstrate absolutely that functional anesthesia might abolish or greatly diminish the skin reactions of the sole of the foot, that is, the plantar reflexes and movements of defense. [Case 385] was alleged in support of Dejerine, as also were cases of Jeanselme and Huet, and of Sollier. Babinski’s critique of Dejerine’s cases ran to the effect that two of them showed contractures, and accordingly were not pure cases in which to demonstrate plantar reflexes or movements of defense. In the third case, Babinski at a meeting of the Neurological Society, himself obtained definite flexion of the little toes by stimulating the planta. According to Babinski, therefore, Dejerine’s cases, far from proving that hysterical anesthesia could abolish the plantar cutaneous reflexes, proved that hysterical contracture might mask reflex movements. Hysterical contracture, therefore, may be as important a factor to consider re reflexes as voluntary muscular contracture itself. As Babinski pointed out, many normal persons can keep the leg immobile when the sole is stimulated. Moreover, Babinski pointed out, many cases regarded as hysterical were actually cases of a physiopathic or reflex nature which had actually undergone trauma. It will be noted that the above case of Paulian is just such a case of trauma.