Prophylaxis has to be directed to infection with Oxyurides generally, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the possibility of auto-infection. With reference to the first-mentioned point, Metschnikoff’s[969] directions should be borne in mind, to the effect that badly washed vegetables, salad, etc., ought not to be eaten (vegetables to be rinsed with boiling water), and also that the members of the family of the diseased individual should be examined for Oxyuridæ and eventually be treated (Heller[970]). With regard to the second point, one has to observe strict cleanliness in general (Barbagallo[971] found ova of the parasites in the layer of dirt under the finger-nails).
Treatment of oxyuriasis must be of a twofold nature; first, medicinal, the administration per os of vermicidal drugs in combination with purgatives; and secondly, local treatment of the gut by means of enemata, suppositories and high injections. Following the method prescribed by Ungar,[972] pulv. glycyrrhizæ co. is first given in the case of smaller children, castor oil or calomel in that of those older, in order to evacuate the intestine, and four times daily on two days following one another a dose of naphthalin, not directly after meal-time, but as far as possible in the interval between two meals, and at the same time the ingestion of fatty or oily nutriment is as far as possible to be avoided. After eight days this treatment should be repeated, and under certain circumstances once again after a further interval of a fortnight. The dose varies between 0·05 and 0·1 grm. (children of 1 year old), 0·1 to 0·2 grm. (children of 2 to 3 years old) and 0·2 to 0·4 grm. (children of 4 to 10 years old). Dornblüth[973] employs the same medicament in a form only slightly modified from Ungar’s method, Barbagallo[974] gives internally only a purgative (decoct. sennæ cum natr. sulfur). Thymol, santonin, kousso, kamala or valerian may be tried instead of naphthalin. For enemata the following are employed: naphthalin in a solution of 1 in 50, ol. olivar. or thymol 0·1 in 200 aq. destill., diluted solutions of lysol, menthol in 1/2 per cent. oily solution, salicylate of soda in watery solution, decoctum tannaceti with santonin, with the addition of some drops of ol. terebinth. (Barbagallo). Decoctions of garlic, infusion of valerian, sulphur water (sublimate is to be avoided), aq. calcariæ, ol. olivarum camphoratum (Vignolo-Lutati). Santonin 0·1 grm. is the best to employ for suppositories.
For high injections, large quantities of plain water are employed (2 to 4 litres), or soapy water (0·2 to 0·5 per cent. solution of sapo medicatus, Heller,[975] Still[976]), 1/2 per cent. salicylic acid solution or liq. alum. acet. (one tablespoonful to a litre of water, Dornblüth[977]), or gujanosol (2 to 3 to 4 to 5 per cent. solution, Rahn[978]). The employment of benzine for such high injections is not advisable according to the experience of Senger,[979] owing to the symptoms of poisoning after the external application of benzine, at least not in the case of young children.
That diseases of the intestine which are accompanied by frequent thin fluid evacuations may lead to recovery from oxyuriasis has frequently been observed by us in the case of young children who have suffered from dysentery (Seifert[980]). Inunctions of cod-liver oil appear to be very valuable in the treatment of oxyuriasis (Szerlecky, Vignolo-Lutati), whilst those with mercurial ointment may easily increase the inflammatory symptoms. The luxury recommended by Esser,[981] that patients every evening before going to sleep should have the female Oxyuridæ picked from the anal fold in the knee-elbow position is one which is certainly only in the power of a few people to carry into execution.
An essay has been published by Hippius and Lewinson (Deutsch. med. Wochenschr., 1907, xliii.) in which the relationship of Oxyuridæ to appendicitis is considered and the treatment of oxyuriasis is discussed. The instructive case recorded appears to show that germs through Oxyuridæ gain access to the tissue of the appendix, and, indeed, are carried in by them. In view of this more recent communication as to the part which intestinal parasites play in the etiology of appendicitis, it seemed to me [O. S.] to be worth while to interrogate my surgical colleagues as to this point. About 2,000 appendicectomies have been jointly performed by Drs. Burkhardt, Enderlen, Pretzfelder, Riedinger, Rosenberger and Siber, and in not one of these cases could entozoa be found to be a possible cause of the appendicitis. Such figures without doubt speak in favour of the fact that even if in individual cases entozoa might come into reckoning as a possible cause, such an etiological factor must be classed among the greatest of rarities. My colleague, Dr. Ries, who practised for ten years in Mexico, informed me that there practically speaking every Indian without exception harboured parasites of the most varied kind, and that in spite of the very extensive professional standing he enjoyed among these people he never had under observation among them a single case of appendicitis. As far as the observation of the authors in question as to the treatment of oxyuriasis is concerned, it must be energetically directed to the employment of local measures for the intestine; they maintain that the use of enemata would be irrational, and that it is astonishing that this method has been able to maintain its standing down to the present day.
HIRUDINEI (Leeches).
The only one of the leeches that comes under consideration from the clinical point of view is Limnatis nilotica (Hæmopsis sanguisuga), which obtains access to the mouth with drinking water, and becomes lodged, even in the case of man, in the pharynx, larynx, trachea, œsophagus and nose.
Amongst the causes of severe hæmorrhage from the pharynx Jurasz[982] mentions the occurrence of leeches in that region: in Northern Europe this must be accounted one of the greatest of rarities, whilst at all times in southern countries, such as South Italy, Spain, Greece, Algiers, Tunis and Egypt, it appears to have been more frequent. Even the physicians of antiquity had much to say about it. Upon the occurrence of blood-stained expectoration, Hippocrates recommends the oral cavity to be examined to see whether a leech is not present in it. Galen speaks of hæmatemesis due to the presence of leeches in the pharynx and stomach. Similar mention is found in the writings of Celsus, Asclepiades, Scribonius Largus, Dioscorides, Aëtius, Oribasius, Paulus Aegineta and others. In recent times, Cortial[983] has published observations relating to this subject which he had the opportunity of making in Constantine. Palazzolo[984] also in Sicily found leeches in two cases in the pharynx, in one case on the posterior wall, in the other in the crypt over the left tonsil. According to Roset,[985] leeches adhere by preference behind the uvula, simulating hæmatemesis and hæmoptysis, and the persistent hæmorrhages they give rise to may lead to severe anæmia. Leeches are found in still greater frequency in the larynx than in the pharyngeal cavity. Huber[986] records several observations of this kind in his historical and therapeutical study. In the case of a man, aged 64, Ramon de la Sota y Lastra[987] observed a leech on the nodulus epiglottidis; this was removed with the forceps. In the case recorded by Photiades,[988] a leech had remained adherent to the vocal cord for more than twenty-two days. Maissurianz[989] records two such cases: in one the leech had remained in the sinus morgagni for three weeks, in the other in the same place for ten days. The case recorded by Schmolitschew[990] is an interesting one; it was that of a woman who for four days had suffered from violent hæmoptysis, the cause of which was a leech that was fixed on the laryngeal wall of the epiglottis close above the vocal cords. In his case (that of a soldier), Godet[991] was forced to perform thyrotomy to remove the leech from the larynx. Ficano[992] removed a live leech with the forceps from the lower laryngeal cavity in a man, aged 30. Massei[993] reports a similar case. The case reported by Winternitz and Karbinski[994] was that of a peasant girl, aged 16, who suffered from coughing, hoarseness, and blood-stained expectoration; a leech had lodged on the root of the epiglottis. Aubert[995] removed a leech from the larynx of a woman after the performance of tracheotomy. Seifert[996] reports three cases: in the first the leech had become fixed to the left vocal cord, in the second it was found in the lower laryngeal cavity, and in the third on the border of the left ligamentum aryepiglotticum. Leone[997] has published the case of a leech in the larynx, Martin[998] two cases with the leech lodged in the lower laryngeal cavity, Berthoud[999] a similar case, Palazzolo[1000] two such cases, Panzat[1001] one case (lower laryngeal cavity). Moucharinski[1002] reports a case in which the leech had stayed more than twenty days in the larynx. Martin[1003] easily removed a leech from the posterior portion of the vocal cord with the forceps. Vieus and Nepeon[1004] record a case of a leech in the larynx. It is quite exceptional for leeches to gain access to the trachea; cases of this kind have been recorded by Aubert,[1005] Vicano,[1006] Ridola[1007] and Tapin[1008] (the leech was firmly fixed to the bifurcation and caused coughing, hæmoptysis and attacks of asphyxia; it was easily removed by the aid of a tracheal tube). Now and then leeches are found in the nose.