Tuberculosis of bones and joints.

  • Senn, Nicholas, 1844-1908.
Date:
1892
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Tuberculosis of bones and joints. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    26/578 (page 4)
    monic histological element of tubevcle. Hueter {Deutsche Zeitschrift f. CJdrwgi'e, B. xi, S. 317) and Schueller ( Ex- perimentelle u. Histologische Untersucliungen, etc. Stutt- gart, 1880) made interesting experiments to establish the mi- crobic origin of tuberculosis, and their work led others to make investigations in the same direction. Lanceraux, Coyne, and Labbe, in 1873, showed the simi- larity existing between the fungous masses in tubercular joints and in tendon-sheaths, and since that time the absolute identity of the two analogous conditions has been made clear by the labors of Trelat, Latteau, Terrier, and Verchere. In 1879, Brissaud and Josias published the results of their investiga- tions, establishing the tubercular nature of cold abscesses. In 1879, Lannelongue and Kiener made known their views con- cerning the identity of lesions in bone and joints that had heretofore been regarded as of a scrofulous nature, with well- recognized tubercular affections in other organs. Volkmann, Billroth, and Konig made valuable clinical contributions which established the tubercular nature of stru- mous disease of bone and tumor albus long before the bacillus of tuberculosis was discovered. Great activity was displayed in all countries to establish the parasitic nature of tuberculosis. Theories were advanced and discussed, microbes were found and described, which were supposed to bear a direct etiological relationship to tuberculosis, but nothing definite was known on the subject until Robert Koch, the father of bacteri- ology ( Die ^tiologie der Tuberculose. Berl. Idin. Woclien- schrift, 1882, No. 15), in 1882, announced to the profession his great discovery. He had found and demonstrated the true cause of tuberculosis, the hacillus of tuberculosis, and in his first publication brought such convincing proof of the correct- ness of his claim that, with few exceptions, it brought convic- tion even to the most skeptical. He had not only found tlie bacillus, but showed that it was constantly present in all tuber- cular lesions. He had isolated and cultivated the bacillus from