This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (19)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

NICHOLAS S. GIMBEL, M.D.; DONALD I. KAPETANSKY, M.D.; FREDERICK WEISSMAN, M.D.; HERMANN K. B. PINKUS, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1957;74(5):800-803.

	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 surgeon responsible for the care of a blistered burn has three decisions to make. First, he may or may not undertake to cleanse foreign material from the burn. Second, he must decide what to do with the blisters. He may leave them intact¹; he may aspirate the fluid,² or he may surgically unroof them.³ Third, he may expose the burn to the air or in some manner elect to dress it. The experiments to be described were designed to discover such differences in epithelization as may depend upon whether the blisters are aspirated, unroofed, or allowed to remain intact.

Experiments

The subjects were medical student volunteers. With the area under lidocaine (Xylocaine) hydrochloride anesthesia, burn blisters were produced by contact with the end of a weighted copper cylinder, 1 cm. in diameter, through which water from a thermostatically controlled bath vigorously recirculated. Twelve to sixteen burns . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Detroit

From the Departments of Surgery and Dermatology, Wayne State University College of Medicine and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.

Footnotes
Supported by a grant from the Detroit Receiving Hospital Research Corporation.

Read at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Western Surgical Association, Cincinnati, Nov. 30, 1956.

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