This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1922;5(5):645-683.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

SOCIETY OF DERMATOLOGY AND SYPHILOLOGY, MADRID

Clinical Session, Dec. 16, 1921

PRESENTATION OF A CLINICAL CASE. DR. PORTILLA.

Dr. Portilla presented an interesting case for diagnosis. The boy was presented before the society last year, and Dr. Portilla had tried to relieve the condition in every possible way. The patient was again presented in order to determine whether antisyphilitic treatment should be continued.

DISCUSSION

DR. SAINZ DE AJA, basing his opinion on the lack of therapeutic response, said he thought the lesion was not syphilitic. It was following the same course as before. Taking into consideration the facts that therapeutic diagnosis cannot be absolute, and that cerebrospinal fluid reaction was negative, he did not consider the case as syphilis.

DR. BEJARANO at first believed it was sclerogummatous meningitis, but now he thought the diagnosis should be changed to diffuse cerebrospinal syphilis with meningeal and parenchymatous involvement, the fluid Wassermann reactions . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?