This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

CHARLES G. STEFFEN, M.D.; MURRAY ZIMMERMAN, M.D.; RICHARD MIHAN, M.D.

AMA Arch Derm. 1956;74(1):76-79.

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

Introduction

Minor surgical procedures are occasionally necessary for patients who have either a known sensitivity to procaine or who obtain little or no anesthesia from it. It was felt that a substitute drug of a different chemical structure would be of definite value. One of the physiologic properties of the antihistamines is that of local anesthesia.¹ It was therefore decided to proceed with a clinical investigation of one of them, diphenhydramine hydrochloride (Benadryl) as a local anesthetic.

Review of the Literature

Rosenthal and Minard² noticed in 1939 that thymoxyethyldiethylamine produced local anesthesia to the same extent as but of longer duration than 1% procaine (Novocaine) when injected intracutaneously or applied locally to the denuded skin in 0.5% concentration. Burchell and Varco³ noted that blebs produced in the human skin by the intracutaneous injection of either thymoxyethyldiethylamine or N'ethyl-N'-diethylaminoethylaniline were anesthetic only over . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Covina, Calif.; Los Angeles

From the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Maximilian E. Obermayer, Director; and the Section of Dermatology, Los Angeles County General Hospital, Maximilian E. Obermayer and Maxwell J. Wolff, Co-chairmen.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Sept. 10, 1955.

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