HOW DID STROKE BECOME OF INTEREST TO NEUROLOGISTS? A SLOW 19TH CENTURY SAGA
HOW DID STROKE BECOME OF INTEREST TO NEUROLOGISTS? A SLOW 19TH CENTURY SAGA
复制标题
神经科医生如何对中风产生兴趣？
DOI：
10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181d2b715
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
9.9
通讯作者：
R. P. Munhoz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. A. Teive;R. P. Munhoz
直到世纪上半叶，中风的血管性质才被迅速认识和接受。脑“软化”与出血性“中风”不同，但中风的病因尚未研究。术语关节炎、血栓形成、栓塞和腔隙被引入以指示病因，但颈动脉闭塞性疾病是后来在世纪后半叶才被认识到的。中风知识的发展是缓慢的，可能与早期伟大的神经学家兴趣有限有关：在当地的领军人物Vulpian和Charcot的时代，中风从来不是Salpetriere和Pitie学校的关键兴趣领域。相比之下，缺乏研究是由于孤立的医生，他们对其他领域没有太大贡献，包括Rochoux，Rostan，Durand-Fardel或Dechambre;关键的进展来自Rokitansky和Virchow等病理学家。神经科医生对中风的兴趣通常明显是由临床地形相关性研究的发展引发的，由Dejerine和玛丽推动，随后是现代临床中风研究之父Foix。
It was not until the first half of the 19th century that the vascular nature of strokes was readily recognized and accepted. Brain "softenings" were distinguished from hemorrhagic "apoplexy," but stroke etiology remained unstudied. The terms artherosclerosis, thrombosis, embolism, and lacune were introduced to indicate etiology, but carotid occlusive disease was recognized later, in the second half of the 19th century. The development of knowledge of stroke was slow, likely corresponding to limited interest by the great early neurologists: stroke never was a field of critical interest in the Salpetriere and Pitie Schools at the time of the local leading figures, Vulpian and Charcot. By contrast, scarce studies were due to isolated physicians, who did not contribute much to other fields, including Rochoux, Rostan, Durand-Fardel, or Dechambre; critical advances came from pathologists such as Rokitansky and Virchow. The interest in stroke among neurologists generally was clearly triggered by the development of clinical-topographic correlation studies, promoted by Dejerine and Marie, and followed by Foix, the father of modern clinical stroke research.