FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132  
133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   >>   >|  
ances of women with an intermenstrual period. Depaul and Gueniot (_Dictionnaire Encyclopedique des Sciences Medicales_, Art., "Menstruation," p. 694) speak of intermenstrual symptoms, and even actual flow, as occurring in women who are in a perfect state of health, and constituting genuine "_regles surnumeraries_." The condition is, however, said to have been first fully described by Valleix; then, in 18725 by Sir William Priestley; and subsequently by Fehling, Fasbender, Sorel, Halliday Croom, Findley, Addinsell, and others. (See, for instance, "Mittelschmerz," by J. Halliday Croom, _Transactions of Edinburgh Obstetrical Society_, vol. xxi, 1896. Also, Krieger, _Menstruation_, pp. 68-69.) Fliess (_Die Beziehungen zwischen Nase und weiblichen Geschlechts-Organen_, p. 118) goes so far as to assert that an intermenstrual period of menstrual symptoms--which he terms _Nebenmenstruation_--is "a phenomenon well known to most healthy women." Observations are at present too few to allow any definite conclusions, and in some of the cases so far recorded a pathological condition of the sexual organs has been found to exist. Rosner, of Cracow, however, found that only in one case out of twelve was there any disease present (_La Gynecologie_, June, 1905), and Storer, who has met with twenty cases, insists on the remarkable and definite regularity of the manifestations, wholly unlike those of neuralgia (_Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_, April 19, 1900). There is no agreement as to the cause of _Mittelschmerz_. Addinsell attributed it to disease of the Fallopian tubes. This, however, is denied by such competent authorities as Cullingworth and Bland Sutton. Others, like Priestley, and subsequently Marsh (_American Journal of Obstetrics_, July, 1897), have sought to find the explanation in the occurrence of ovulation. This theory is, however, unsupported by facts, and eventually rests on the exploded belief that ovulation is the cause of menstruation. Rosner, following Richelet, vaguely attributes it to the diffused hyperaemia which is generally present. Van de Velde also attributes it to an abnormal fall of vascular tone, causing passive congestion of the pelvic viscera. Others again, like Armand Routh and MacLean, in the course of an interesting discussion on _Mittelschmerz_ at
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132  
133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

present

 
intermenstrual
 

Mittelschmerz

 

attributes

 

Others

 

Addinsell

 
Journal
 
subsequently
 

Halliday

 
ovulation

Priestley

 

condition

 

symptoms

 

disease

 

Rosner

 

Menstruation

 

period

 

definite

 
Gynecologie
 

Fallopian


agreement

 

attributed

 

manifestations

 

wholly

 
unlike
 

twenty

 
insists
 

remarkable

 

denied

 
neuralgia

Storer

 

regularity

 

Surgical

 

Boston

 

Medical

 

occurrence

 
abnormal
 

vascular

 

diffused

 

hyperaemia


generally

 

causing

 

passive

 

MacLean

 
interesting
 
discussion
 

Armand

 

congestion

 
pelvic
 

viscera