Neuralgia and the diseases that resemble it

by Francis Edmund Anstie

It seems to me that, without enlarging further on this almost endless topic, I should be justified in assuming that I had shown the very high probability that the common starting-point both of the neuralgia and of its vaso-motor secretory, and trophic complications, was in the sensory root of the trigeminus. But the argument is greatly strengthened when we consider the fact that loss of peripheral common, and also tactile sensation, to a greater or less degree, is constantly observed to occur simultaneously with the pain and with the other complications. When we observe a patient suffering from racking supra-orbital and ocular neuralgia, and discover that at the very same period the skin round the eye is markedly insensitive to impressions, except in the points douloureux, what can we rationally suppose, except that both pain and insensibility are the result of one and the same influence, which radiates from the sensory centre?

Nor are we likely to reach a different conclusion, if we test the matter by the consideration of a rarer, but still sufficiently common kind of case, such as I have described in Chapter I., in which a very strong peripheral influence (traumatic) produces neuralgia, accompanied by vaso-motor and secretory phenomena, and by anæsthesia, but not in the district of the painful nerve, but in the territory of a quite different nerve. How can we doubt, in the case, e. g., of a trigeminal neuralgia thus complicated, the exciting cause of which was a wound of the ulnar nerve, that the morbid influence, traveling inward from the lesion, would have passed without any special consequences (as happens in thousands of such nerve-wounds), had it not, in its passage along the medulla, encountered a locus minoris resistentiæ in the roots of the trigeminus? It seems impossible to account for the phenomena on any other theory. [Eulenburg says, in reference to my reported cases of the kind: "Solche Falle begunstigen in hohem Grade die Annahme pradisponirender Momente, die in der ursprunglich schwacheren Organisation einzelner Abschnitte des centralen Nerven-apparates beruhen." Op. cit., p. 56.]

It is necessary, in the next place, to consider a very important question, how far irritation can pass over from one nerve to another, without reflection through a spinal centre, solely in virtue of a connection through the medium of a nervous plexus. The case which apparently presents such phenomena in the most unmistakable way is that of angina pectoris.

The site to which the essential heart-pain is referred in this disease is probably the cardiac, or this and the aortic plexus; in a comparatively small number of cases the pain does not extend farther. But much more frequently it spreads in various directions, and we have to account for its presence (a) in intercostal nerves, (b) cervical nerves, (c) nerves springing from the brachial plexus.

Before we inquire into the mechanism by which this extension of the pain takes place, we ought in strictness to ask ourselves whether the essential heart-pain is felt only in the spinal sensory branches, or whether the sympathetic fibres are themselves capable of feeling pain. The latter supposition, notwithstanding all that has been argued in its favor from the supposed analogies of the pain of colic, gall-stone, etc., seems to me very doubtful. It would appear more probable that both the latter pains, and also those of angina, are really connected with branches either of the vagus or of other spinal nerves. And there is no need to invoke the sympathetic as a sensory nerve, to account either for the essential heart-pain of angina, or for its extension into arm, chest-wall, and neck. For the plexus cardiacus receives spinal branches, both from the vagus and also (through the medium of the sympathetic ganglia of the neck) from the whole length of the cervical and the uppermost part of the dorsal cord-centres. And, in this way, it would seem quite possible intelligibly to account for the pain radiating into intercostal, cervical, and brachial nerves, merely by extension of a morbid process essentially seated in the cord. Usually, however, one sees it explained not in this way, but by the inter-communications that exist outside the spine, between the branches from the cervical ganglia and the lower cervical and upper dorsal nerves; and the pain in the arm is especially explained by the connection (outside the spinal canal) of the inferior cervical ganglion, on the one hand with the lower cervical nerves, which go to the brachial plexus, and, on the other hand, with the heart itself. There remains to be explained, however, the singular tendency of the arm-pain to be one-sided (this happens in at least four cases out of five); and this explanation seems to me insuperably difficult, on the theory that the transference of morbid action to the brachial nerves takes place through external anastomoses. It appears greatly more probable that angina is essentially a mainly unilateral morbid condition of the lower cervical and upper dorsal portion of the cord; liable of course to be seriously aggravated by such peripheral sources of irritation as would be furnished by diseases of the heart, and especially by diseases of the coronary arteries; the latter affection probably involving constant mechanical irritation of the cardiac and the aortic plexuses. It is noteworthy that the arm-pain is sometimes (I do not know how often) accompanied by vaso-motor paralysis in the limb; this phenomenon could also certainly be more easily accounted for on the supposition of radiation from a spinal vaso-motor centre (to which the morbid process had extended from a posterior nerve-root) than on that of communication between painful sensory nerves and vaso-motor nerves; through either of the plexuses independently of the spinal centres.

In truth, I suspect that, whatever part the plexuses, with their reenforcing ganglionic cells, may play during physiological life, they are not often the channels of mutual pathological reaction of one kind of nerve with another. It would be possible to argue this even more strongly in the case of trigeminal neuralgias; but I must not unnecessarily expand this already too lengthy discussion.

From the varied considerations which have now been adduced, the reader, unless I altogether miscalculate the value of the facts, will probably have arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That the assumption of a positive material centric change as the essential morbid event in neuralgia is almost forced upon us; (2) that, whereas the morbid process, if centric, is a priori infinitely more likely to be seated in the posterior root of the painful nerve, or the gray matter immediately connected with it, than anywhere else; so, again, the assumption of this locality will explain, as no other theory could explain, the singular variety of complications (all of them nearly always unilateral, and on the same side as the pain) which are apt to group themselves around a neuralgia; and some of which are very seldom absent in neuralgia of any considerable severity. To this we may certainly add that it is extremely probable that the vast majority of neuralgic patients inherit the tendency to this localized centric change; in support of this we may finally mention two considerations derived from the sex and the ages most favorable to neuralgia. Eulenburg saw a hundred and six cases of neuralgia of all kinds, of which seventy-six were in women and only thirty in men; my own experience is very similar; namely, sixty-eight women and thirty-two men out of a hundred hospital and private patients. The strong connection between the hysteric and the neuralgic temperament in women, and the great preponderance of women among neuralgics, strengthen in no small degree the probability of inherent tendencies to unstable equilibrium as a very common predisposing factor in neuralgia. And, on the subject of age, I need only recall what I have said so strongly about the coincidence of neuralgia with particular epochs in life, as affording evidence of the most powerful kind that neuralgics are, save in exceptional instances, persons with congenitally weak spots in the nervous centres, which break down into degeneration, temporary or permanent, under the strains imposed by one or other of the physiological crises of the organism, or the special physical or psychical circumstances which surround the patient's life.

Having thus decidedly expressed my belief in the essential material participation of the nerve-centre in neuralgia, it remains for me to discuss two points: first, as to the character of the material change in the nerve-root, and next, as to the extent to which mere peripheral influence, without special inherited tendencies, may suffice to set this process going.

The morbid change in the nerve-centre is probably, in the vast majority of cases, an interstitial atrophy, tending either to recovery, or to the gradual establishment of gray degeneration, or yellow atrophy, of considerable portions of the whole of the posterior root, and the commencement of the sensory trunk as far as the ganglion.

It is probable, however, that in a certain number of cases, the atrophic stage may be preceded by a process of genuine inflammation, and that this inflammation is centripetally produced in consequence of inflammations of peripheral portions of the nerve. The considerations which make this probable are chiefly derived from the analysis of cases in which a more or less chronic, but severe, visceral disorder has been followed by so-called reflex paralysis, but in which neuralgic phenomena, have been conspicuous. In reference to this subject I recommend to the reader's attention the very interesting paper on "Reflex Paralyses" by Prof. Leyden, of Konigsberg.[28] He is immediately commenting upon a case in which dysenteric affection of the bowel were followed by the symptoms of myelitis, attended with febrile exacerbations, and also with severe pains in the region of the sacrum, in the course of the dorsal intercostal nerves of the right side, and in the knees, and semi-paralytic weakness of the lower extremities, and with pains between the shoulder-blades and the left arm. Leyden discusses the doctrine of reflex paralyses in general, starting from the cases of urinary paraplegia brought forward by Stanley, in 1835, and tracing the growth of opinion through the phases represented by Graves, Henoch, and Romberg, by Valentine and Hasse, then by Pfuger, and other professors of the inhibitory doctrine; by Brown-Sequard (in his well-known, and now very generally discredited, theory of spasm of the vessels in the nervous centres), by Jaccoud in the "Erschopfung" (exhaustion) theory, down to the more careful and reliable researches of Levisson on the temporary reflected paralyses induced by experimental squeezing of the kidney or uterus of animals; and then gives the history of the more recent doctrine of a positive material change in the cord centripetally introduced. Gull[29] (1856) may be said to have inaugurated the new doctrine of a morbid process transmitted along the pelvic nerves to the cord, and causing material changes there. Remak,[30] on the other hand, suggested a material change operating in the opposite direction; a neuritis descendens, starting in the very nerves (within the pelvis) which showed the paralysis in the extremities. The symptoms are supposed by him to be distinctive, inasmuch as there is both violent pain in the nerves of the soles of the feet, and also tenderness of the same. On the other hand, Remak said that myelitis, with neuritis, might be the origin of paraplegia and simultaneous palsy of bladder and rectum. The theory of neuritis descendens was supported by Kussmaul,[31] in the record of a case where disease of the bladder was complicated with pelvic inflammation, atheromatous degeneration of the arteries, and consequent fatty degeneration of the sciatic nerves, causing direct paraplegia. We return to the centripetal theory of urinary paralysis with Leyden's own cases, published in 1865; of three patients with urinary paraplegia, two died, and the existence of a secondary (centripetal) myelitis seems to have been established, and by all analogy it must have existed in the third case, which recovered. The only puzzle and doubt that ensued was caused by the fact that there was an absence of neuritis in the different nerves themselves; though it seemed plain that the starting point of the myelitis was at the entrance of these nerves into the cord. This mystery seemed to be cleared up by the important experiments of Tiesler, ("Ueber Neuritis" Konigsberg, 1860) a pupil of Leyden's. This observer excited local traumatic inflammation in the sciatic nerve of rabbits and dogs; the rabbit became paraplegic and died three days afterward. At the site of the artificial irritation there was a localized formation of pus, and there was a second similar formation within the vertebral canal at the point where the posterior roots of the sciatic enter the cord; but there was no neuritis of the intervening portion of the nerve.