A Case of Gilles de la Tourette's Syndrome with some Observations on Aetiology and Treatment

Abstract

Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome has not been reported outside Europe and America, and all the patients reported have been of the white or negro races (Singer, 1963). Although the condition was described as early as in 1825 by Itard and later differentiated as a syndrome by Gilles de la Tourette (1885), and although the syndrome is an unusual condition with undetermined aetiology, treatment and prognosis (Eisenberg et al., 1959, Kelman, 1965), and Kinnier Wilson (1940) had given the syndrome ‘a sinister’ outlook characteristically ending in insanity, Fernando (1967) could find only 85 cases published in English literature as cases of the syndrome. He rejected 20 cases, and of the 65 ‘proven cases' 50 were from the United States, 13 from Britain, one each from Finland and Canada. Shapiro and Shapiro (1968) commented on the scarcity of the syndrome even in the Western culture. Extensive search in the literature has shown that Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome has not been reported in Asians. This paper presents a detailed report of the first case from India.

Gilles De La Tourette Syndrome

“…This uncommon condition has been found all over the world (Prabhakaran, 1976) and most case reports are from Europe and America (Shapiro, Shapiro, Wayne and Clarksin, 1973). The syndrome is characterised by:…”

A Behavioral Treatment Program for the Gilles De La Tourette Syndrome

“…The irregularity with which neurological and EEG examinations have yielded any diagnostically reliable difference appears to be evidence against an organic basis. Some authors (Prabhakaran, 1970;Stevens & Blachly, 1966) suggest a possible interaction or combination of functional and organic faccors, based primarily on the reported success with drug treatments. As a result of Yates' (1958) early work, tics have more recently been viewed as learned responses (habits) and treated within the frarnework of Hullian learning theory (Clark, 1966;Rafi, 1962;Thomas, et al, 1971;Yates, 1970) ; or as operanc responses which could be modified by the manipulation of the response consequences (Barrett, 1962).…”