 |
 |

Ultraviolet Light and Tar in the Goeckerman Treatment of Psoriasis
Albert R. Marsico, MD;
William H. Eaglstein, MD;
Gerald D. Weinstein, MD
Arch Dermatol. 1976;112(9):1249-1250.
Abstract
In an attempt to evaluate and improve the Goeckerman treatment of psoriasis, combinations of tar and ultraviolet (UV) light were studied. The effects of UV irradiation alone, of crude coal tar (CCT) ointment alone, and of UV irradiation with 1% CCT ointment and with 6% CCT ointment on psoriatic lesions were compared. The combinations of 1% CCT ointment with UV irradiation and of 6% CCT ointment with UV irradiation were found to be equally effective. The combination of UV irradiation with ointment had little effect on psoriatic lesions. In most cases, the combination of 1% CCT ointment and UV irradiation was superior to high-concentration (6%) tar ointment wihout UV irradiation. This study suggests that UV light is an important component of the Goeckerman treatment and that tar and UV irradiation are superior to tar alone.
(Arch Dermatol 112:1249-1250, 1976)
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Dermatology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Fla.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Nov 5, 1975.
Reprint requests to Department of Dermatology, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 520875, Biscayne Annex, Miami, FL 33152 (Dr Eaglstein).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
UV-B Phototherapy: An Overview
Anderson et al.
Arch Dermatol 1984;120:1502-1507.
ABSTRACT
The Role of Tar in Goeckerman Therapy
Belsito and Kechijian
Arch Dermatol 1982;118:319-321.
ABSTRACT
Outpatient Phototherapy for Psoriasis
Adrian et al.
Arch Dermatol 1981;117:623-626.
ABSTRACT
Effects of Emollients on Ultraviolet-Radiation-Induced Erythema of the Skin
Schleider et al.
Arch Dermatol 1979;115:1188-1191.
ABSTRACT
Tar Gel-Phototherapy for Psoriasis: Combined Therapy With Suberythemogenic Doses of Fluorescent Sunlamp Ultraviolet Radiation
Frost et al.
Arch Dermatol 1979;115:840-846.
ABSTRACT
|