4.3 Article

Curse on Two Generations: A History of Congenital Syphilis

Journal

NEONATOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 4, Pages 274-280

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000347107

Keywords

Hospitals; history; Infant; Lues venerea; hereditary; Syphilis; congenital

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Before the microbiologic era, venereal diseases were poorly distinguished. Congenital syphilis was believed to be transmitted during conception by the father's sperm, during delivery in the birth canal, or from infected milk or breasts. The most frequent maternofetal transmission was not considered because the mother's primary infection remained undiagnosed. The concept of treating infants with mercury transmitted by nurses' milk prompted the founding of a specialized infant hospital in Vaugirard in 1780: lactating syphilitic women received mercury orally and by rubbing it into the skin. Their own infant and a second infected infant from the foundling hospital were believed to be cured by their milk. Underwood described snuffles in 1789 and Bertin periosteal bone disease in 1810. Tardive congenital lues with keratitis, deafness, and notched upper incisors were described by Hutchinson in 1863. Feeding remained difficult, as wet nursing transmitted syphilis to the nurse and other infants. Specialized institutions tried goat or donkey milk. A debate between contagionists assuming exclusively maternal infection and hereditists assuming germinal transmission by the father's sperm continued throughout the 19th century. Schaudinn and Hoffmann identified Spirochaeta pallida in 1905. When Ehrlich discovered the efficacy of salvarsan in 1910, Noeggerath treated infants with the new drug, pioneering the injection into scalp veins. In 1943, Lentz and Ingraham established penicillin treatment for congenital syphilis. Whereas this drug effectively prevented maternofetal transmission, treating infants remained difficult due to the Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available