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?

Ernst Epstein, MD
100 S Ellsworth Ave Suite 707 San Mateo, CA 94401

Arch Dermatol. 1994;130(3):389.

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

A serious flaw mars the study by Phillips and coworkers¹ that appeared in the July 1993 issue of the ARCHIVES. Winter,²in 1962, showed that superficial experimental wounds in pigs healed more rapidly under an occlusive dressing compared with those exposed to air. Hinman and Maibach³ confirmed these findings in humans in 1963, and since then there has been an extensive literature describing improved healing when superficial skin wounds are not allowed to desiccate. We know why; dry wounds form a crust that acts as a barrier to the movement of epithelial cells to cover the wound bed. Modern dressings try to prevent wound desiccation and subsequent crust formation.

Unfortunately, Phillips and coworkers in their study deliberately produced a crust by the use of Monsel's solution or Drysol solution. Monsel's solution contains ferric iron, a powerful protein precipitant while Drysol contains aluminum chloride, which is also an . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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