Diphtheria : its history, pathology, nature and treatment : an essay which received the first prize of the Medical Association of the State of Georgia, June, 1866 / by E.S. Gaillard.

  • Gaillard, E. S. (Edwin Samuel), 1827-1885.
Date:
1867
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Diphtheria : its history, pathology, nature and treatment : an essay which received the first prize of the Medical Association of the State of Georgia, June, 1866 / by E.S. Gaillard. 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.

    21/116 (page 19)
    ficient to say, that the existonce of the parasites, oidium. albicans, leptothrix huccalis and the hoematophyta of raicroscopists do not serve the purpose of a theoretical or practical distinction between the respective diseases. Muguet is chiefly and perhaps solely, a disease of infants at the breast; whilst diphtheria is not peculiar to any age. The first usually commences in the mouth; the last in the fauces. The exudation of the first is curdy and flocculent; that of the last membranous, uniform and coriaceous. The constitu- tional symptoms of the first are slight and often absent; those of the last are often grave and usually present. Muguet is not epidemic , diphtheria is very frequently so. In the first, the swelling of the lymphatic glands behind the jaw is seldom seen ; in the last, it is sel- dom absent. Deglutition is not impaired, in the first; in the last, it is troublesome and frequently painful. In the first, there are no com plications, no sequelae, and there is prompt and continuous conva- lescence; in the last, there are complications, troublesome sequelae, and the convalescence is slow, protracted and frequently inter- rupted. The prognosis is always good in the first; in the last, it is often grave. Aphthous inflammation of the mouth is often mistaken for diph- theria. The distinction between them is marked and decided. The mistake, however, has been made, we have observed, by Bretton- neau, Valleix, Roche, Barthez, and others. The microscopic dis- tinctions will not be given, for they are not uniformly recognized, even by good authorities on this subject. They are not easily made by the majority of the Profession. [Laycock observes, that in diphtheria the microscope reveals the spores and mycelium of the fungus; in aphthous inflammation of the mouth, there is nothing of peculiar or special importance revealed.] The exudation in diph- theria is not follicular, vesicular, nor ulcerative ; in aphthous in^ flamiuation of the mouth it is follicular, vesicular, and often ulcer- ative. In the first, (diphtheria,) there are swellings of the lymphatic glands, obstructed deglutition, fever, sequelae, complica- tions, notorious mortality, epidemic prevalence, interrupted conva- lescence, and frequently a grave prognosis. In the last, (aphthous inflammation of the mouth,) there are no swellings of the glands, no impairment of deglutition, no fever, no sequelae, no complications,