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?

C. F. LEHMANN, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1930;21(3):449-463.

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

Darier¹ stated that "when one is faced with a dyshidrosiform eruption the problem is to decide between either (1) parasitic epidermatophytosic dyshidrosis, or (2) non-parasitic dyshidrosis, or occupational dyshidrosiform dermatitis." Since Mouktar² (1892) called attention to the fact that many cases are mycotic, there has been a growing tendency to blame this infection. Recently, Mitchell³ reported his failure to find fungi in dermatoses that simulate mycotic pictures. He quoted Rajka, who stated that there are three forms of dyshidrosis: mycotic, microbic and nonparasitic, and that it is his belief that further study might lead to the placing of many of the cases of the third group into one or the other of the first two groups. The sudden change exhibited by certain dyshidroses into pyoderma suggests microbic origin in them, although it cannot be definitely determined whether the pyogenic infection is primary or secondary. The failure to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Footnotes
Submitted for publication, Aug. 27, 1929.

Read before the Section on Dermatology and Syphilology at the Eightieth Annual Session of the American Medical Association, Portland, Ore., July 12, 1929.

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