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?

Tania J. Phillips, MD
Department of Dermatology Boston University School of Medicine 609 Albany St, J-106 Boston, MA 02118

Arch Dermatol. 1994;130(3):389-390.

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

Our study reproduces that of Nemeth et al,¹ which showed significant advantage in using hydrocolloid dressings on shave biopsy sites. Nemeth et al used Monsel's (ferric subsulfate) solution to achieve hemostasis, yet still found that occlusive therapy-treated sites were 3.8 times more likely to be healed than those treated with conventional therapy.

These results were consistent with the known fibrinolytic of some hydrocolloid dressings both clinically and in vitro.² These dressings are useful in liquefying eschar and promoting granulation tissue and can indeed have a significant effect on the healing process when crusting is present, as Nemeth et al demonstrated.

The studies quoted by Epstein^3,4 tested Monsel's solution and Drysol solution on deep punch biopsy wounds, not superficial shave biopsy sites. I would suggest that for superficial wounds the use of such agents does not significantly impair healing, as the majority of wounds in our study were . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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