Fibrinous or membranous rhinitis and its relation to diphtheria / by H. Lambert Lack ; (communicated by Allan Macfadyen).

  • Lack, Harry Lambert, 1867-1943.
Date:
1899
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Fibrinous or membranous rhinitis and its relation to diphtheria / by H. Lambert Lack ; (communicated by Allan Macfadyen). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    6/42
    liad also a patch of exudation on the pharynx. Both observers exclude all connection with diphtheria. In 1891 Newcomb reports two cases^ Leemans two, Lieven two, Hunt one ; and the disease is discussed by others, as MacDonald, Hajelc, &c. Up to this date over thirty-three cases have been fully recorded, some observers giving no numbers but stating that the disease is common. In no case could any connection with diphtheria be discovered, and the disease was by all considered quite distinct. The society to whom Leemans showed his cases declared it was unnecessary to go into the differential diagnosis, no one could confound them. In 1892 the role of the Klebs-Loffler bacillus was becoming generally recognised, and the results of the bacteriological examination of these cases were reported and changed the views of its pathology. Baginsky always found the Klebs-Loffler bacillus present, and considered the affection to be a mild form of diphtheria. Park found the bacillus in all of ten cases, in one of which the tonsil was also affected. Stamm and Abbott each found it in three cases. Other observers, however, as Abel, Van Starck, Frankel, Sedziak, Ritter, &c., failed to obtain it. In this year also Concetti published five cases, in two of which he found the Klebs-Loffler bacillus. His cases should, however, be rather considered as true nasal diphtheria, as he himself calls them. In one of them the disease spread to the larynx, in two cases gave rise to diphtheritic infection, and in one was followed by paralysis of the palate, &c. In more recent years numerous papers and references to the disease are found, chiefly in German and American literature. Most observers, reljnng on the results of bacteriological examination, consider the disease a form of diphtheria, and discuss the cause of the mildness of its symptoms. Perhaps the most careful papers are those of Park and Abbott above alluded to, and those of Ravenel, who reports ten cases, of Gerber and Podack, who observed