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?

CHARLES K. SERGEANT, M.D.; JOSEPH L. PONKA, M.D.; BROCK E. BRUSH, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1959;78(3):480-482.

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

Substances for local application to wounds continue to be offered and frequently recommended as adjuncts to epithelization, despite the known facts that chemicals applied to wounds generally retard their healing. Lister first recognized that his antiseptic agents often delayed rather than supported wound healing, and thus began the emphasis upon asepsis, rather than antisepsis. The sulfonamide drugs were widely used in wounds until clinical and experimental studies revealed them to be deleterious. Even with this, as each new antimicrobial agent is discovered, an ointment is invariably promoted for application to wound surfaces. These agents must be appraised, as they appear, in order that no harm should be done through their use.

The study of the healing wound and inflammation has attracted many investigators, in an effort to understand better the physiologic processes involved. From these studies have come elaborate methods for following the wounds and discrening the processes. For the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Detroit

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Oct. 14, 1958.

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