Observations “were undertaken” by H. Fillman, of Leipzig, “in order, if
possible to obtain further and more accurate information upon some
contested points regarding erysipelas.” The experimenter has addressed
himself here, especially to the answering of the four following
questions:
I. Is it possible to convey erysipelas by inoculation from a diseased to
a healthy individual? In other words, do those fluids obtained from the
tissues of an erysipelatous part and employed for inoculation (_e. g._,
lymph, blood, the contents of bullæ, pus, etc.,) exercise a specific,
_i. e._, contagious action on healthy individuals when inoculated, or do
they not?
II. What is the action of carbolic acid upon those erysipelatous animal
fluids which produced the same disease on being inoculated into healthy
individuals, and therefore in all probability contained the erysipelas
poison?
III. In what way is it possible (apart from direct conveyance) to
produce erysipelas in healthy animals by the application of different
morbid matters?
IV. What do we learn from the results of anatomical and experimental
investigation regarding the presence and significance of bacteria? What
relation have they to erysipelas?
It would be difficult for four more interesting or important questions
for the practical and scientific surgeon than these. But in proportion
to their importance are the difficulties which surround them. These,
however, are grappled with by the author courageously, patiently, and
honestly, and the result is at all events a series of experiments of
extreme interest, whatever be the conclusion, we may feel disposed to
draw from them. Indeed, the writer himself seems to have set out upon
his investigation purely with the desire to learn whatever is to be
learned on the points stated, by careful and patient anatomical
research, and without being wedded to any particular theory in regard to
them, or desiring to force any conclusion.
Recognizing the great importance of the subject, and the efforts that
have been made by others in the same direction to throw light upon it,
notably by William, Ponfick, Orth, Bellien, Zuelzer, and Lukomsky, he
has recognized many points in which these observers have failed, and has
endeavored, in following out somewhat similar lines of research, to
avoid their, and other, errors.
To the danger of one great source of possible error the author seems
specially alive, the introduction of other matters into the system of
the animal operated on than the mere morbid fluid inoculated, and this
he has endeavored to guard against by the most scrupulous cleanliness in
obtaining, preparing and introducing such fluids into the bodies of
animals.
In touching upon the first question his first case is to define as
clearly as possible what are the clinical features which characterize
erysipelas in the human subject. He then details in all his experiments,
and, from the kind of success of five out of twenty-five inoculations he
believes there can be no doubt “that erysipelas is inoculable in rare
cases; that fluids from an erysipelatous part, display a specific
contagious action.” In three cases he inoculated animals from the human
subject successfully with erysipelas, and in two cases animals were
infected from other animals. He believes, too, that one human subject
might be inoculated from another.
In regard to the second question propounded, four experiments were made
with erysipelatous inoculation material, which had been potent in other
cases, but here a portion of 2–4 per cent. solution of carbolic acid was
added. In none of these cases was there any appearance of either local
or general symptoms of any disease.
In answer to question III, all the author’s results were negative. In no
case was erysipelas produced by even the most putrid inoculations, when
they were not taken from an erysipelatous part. In several cases,
however, the animals died of distinct septicæmia.
The observations on the last point which are related in detail, point to
the conclusion that bacteria are present in some cases of erysipelas and
absent in others, so that we may infer that the advance of the disease
does not depend upon their presence.—_London Medical Record._