Slater J D
Clin Rheum Dis. 1986 Dec;12(3):791-809.
The aetiology of the clinical stiff-man syndrome is likely to be heterogenous, but until we have more precise methods of identifying an individual cause the need will continue for this rather flippant appellation in patients whose condition cannot be described in any other way. It is also important because patients may otherwise become labelled as suffering from a psychiatric disorder and may even be falsely accused of abusing diazepam (Westblom, 1978). The reverse is also true, and patients may masquerade as stiff men or women (Price and Allott, 1958; Casati and Rossi, 1969). The endocrine dimension remains and should be tested for carefully, particularly in patients with predominantly lower-limb rigidity whose spasms are a relatively minor aspect of their clinical syndrome. Clearly those patients described by George et al (1984) and Slater (1960) as suffering from the stiff-man syndrome need to be reclassified as examples of the hormonal stiff muscle syndrome, and there may be others so misclassified. An endocrine aetiology may easily be missed in a patient with relatively minor muscle stiffness, pain and cramps, such as the man described by Yunus et al (1981) whose myalgia, 'arthralgia' and muscle tenderness vanished completely within four days of taking physiological replacement doses of cortisone acetate as treatment for his hypopituitarism. The rarity of the stiff-man syndrome makes prospective studies of its aetiology and treatment impossible, yet the dramatic and devastating nature of the syndrome suggests that such cases may be extreme examples of a much more common condition. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that once the psychiatric, the overtly neurological and the endocrine cases are omitted we are left with nothing. However, this is just where Moersch and Woltman came in; they could not explain 14 of their cases. Despite modern technology, despite refinements of diagnosis and despite the increasing recognition of the stiff-man syndrome as a heterogeneous condition, there still remains--albeit very rarely--a cohort of patients with progressive proximal muscular stiffness and spasms who defy proper scientific explanation, but who are likely to suffer from a chronic myelitis which destroys normal feedback mechanisms between muscle spindles and the spinal cord. Experience over the last 30 years has served at least to alert people to the psychiatric possibilities, to remove any question of primary muscle or tendon disease and to point to the usefulness of diazepam. With hope, this chapter provides an endocrine dimension which offers an actual cure and therefore deserves to be more widely recognized.
临床僵人综合征的病因可能具有异质性,但在我们拥有更精确的方法来确定个体病因之前,对于那些无法用其他方式描述病情的患者,这个略显轻率的称谓仍将继续存在。这也很重要,因为否则患者可能会被贴上患有精神障碍的标签,甚至可能被错误地指控滥用地西泮(韦斯特布洛姆,1978年)。反之亦然,患者可能会伪装成僵人(普赖斯和阿洛特,1958年;卡萨蒂和罗西,1969年)。内分泌方面的因素依然存在,应该仔细检查,尤其是对于以下肢僵硬为主且痉挛在其临床综合征中相对次要的患者。显然,乔治等人(1984年)和斯莱特(1960年)描述的那些患有僵人综合征的患者需要重新归类为激素性僵肌综合征的例子,可能还有其他被错误分类的患者。对于肌肉僵硬、疼痛和痉挛相对较轻的患者,内分泌病因很容易被忽视,比如尤努斯等人(1981年)描述的那个男子,他的肌痛、“关节痛”和肌肉压痛在服用生理替代剂量的醋酸可的松治疗垂体功能减退症后的四天内完全消失。僵人综合征的罕见性使得对其病因和治疗进行前瞻性研究变得不可能,然而该综合征的戏剧性和破坏性表明,这些病例可能是一种更为常见疾病的极端例子。另一方面,可以认为一旦排除了精神方面、明显神经方面和内分泌方面的病例,就什么都不剩了。然而,这正是莫尔施和沃尔特曼介入之处;他们的14个病例无法得到解释。尽管有现代技术,尽管诊断方法有所改进,尽管越来越认识到僵人综合征是一种异质性疾病,但仍然存在——尽管非常罕见——一群进行性近端肌肉僵硬和痉挛的患者,他们无法得到恰当的科学解释,但可能患有慢性脊髓炎,这种疾病破坏了肌梭和脊髓之间的正常反馈机制。过去30年的经验至少提醒人们注意精神方面的可能性,消除了原发性肌肉或肌腱疾病的疑问,并指出了地西泮的有用性。满怀希望地,本章提供了一个内分泌方面的因素,它能带来实际的治愈效果,因此值得更广泛地被认可。