School of Health Sciences, University of Queensland, and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
J Hist Neurosci. 2021 Jul-Sep;30(3):252-263. doi: 10.1080/0964704X.2020.1843118. Epub 2020 Dec 15.
In 1833, Edward Stanley described the autopsy findings in seven men with paraplegia but no visible spinal cord abnormality. All had upper urinary tract infections. Stanley suggested that a nerve-transmitted input from the kidneys could suppress function in the spinal cord, causing paralysis. Others-principally Leroy d'Etiolles (1856) and Brown-Séquard (1859-1862)-expanded the concept to account for otherwise unexplained limb weakness (urinary or reflex paraplegia), and widened the range of culprit anatomical sites. Such interpretations continued until into the late-nineteenth century. In 1861, William Gull, long interested in paraplegia, attacked the concept, arguing that it depended on failure to examine affected spinal cords microscopically. He hinted that catheterization might have played a part in the phenomenon. With increasing knowledge of spinal cord histopathology and awareness of the basis of suppuration and the need for sterile techniques, mention of urinary paraplegia disappeared gradually over the course of the nineteenth century and the disease as an entity ceased to exist by 1900.
1833 年，爱德华·斯坦利（Edward Stanley）描述了七名截瘫但无明显脊髓异常的男性的尸检结果。所有患者均患有上尿路感染。斯坦利认为，来自肾脏的神经传递输入可能会抑制脊髓功能，导致瘫痪。其他人——主要是勒罗伊·德埃蒂奥尔（Leroy d'Etiolles，1856 年）和布朗-塞夸德（Brown-Séquard，1859-1862 年）——扩展了这一概念，以解释其他原因不明的四肢无力（尿或反射性截瘫），并扩大了致病解剖部位的范围。这种解释一直持续到 19 世纪末。1861 年，长期关注截瘫的威廉·格尔（William Gull）对这一概念提出了质疑，他认为这取决于未能对受影响的脊髓进行显微镜检查。他暗示导尿可能在这一现象中起了一定作用。随着对脊髓组织病理学的了解不断增加，以及对化脓的基础和无菌技术的必要性的认识不断提高，尿性截瘫的说法逐渐在 19 世纪消失，到 1900 年，这种疾病作为一种实体已经不复存在。
