This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JOÃO MONTENEGRO, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1926;13(2):187-194.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The clinical diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the majority of cases presents no difficulty. This is not true, however, of the lesions of mucous membranes, particularly in those cases in which there are no associated lesions of the skin. In such cases the differential diagnosis from syphilis, tuberculosis and blastomycosis may not be easy. Search for parasites in smears and sections is frequently negative, particularly if specific therapy, such as intravenous injections of tartar emetic, has already been instituted. The histologic features of the lesion, though easily distinguished from tuberculosis and blastomycosis, may be confused with syphilis. The therapeutic test, that is, the administration of tartar emetic, may give no aid, since, as is well known, the mucous lesions are notably refractory to treatment. Antisyphilitic treatment might be more helpful, though there would remain the possibility of a third undetermined infection in those cases in which the Wassermann reaction was . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Assistant in the Institute of Pathological Anatomy of the Faculty of Medicine SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?