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?

PAUL H. JORDAN, JR., M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1963;86(4):563-570.

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

Healing of infected wounds is frequently difficult and time consuming, causing significant physical discomfort and financial losses for patients. Efforts to find a method which will facilitate healing have resulted in the local application of various antibiotics, chemicals, and enzymes. In spite of these adjuvant forms of therapy, removal of necrotic debris by mechanical means remains the most important principle in the care of infected wounds. Notwithstanding the importance of mechanical debridement, its limitations and disadvantages provide a stimulus to develop new forms of adjuvant therapy. Cavitary wounds do not always lend themselves to operative debridement. On the other hand, their treatment with irrigations and dressing changes may be insufficient even though drainage is adequate. Mechanical debridement of wounds with minimal tissue overlying bone, urethra, blood vessels, or other vital structures cannot be performed without the risk of possible exposure and damage to these tissues. Frequently, large wounds with uneven . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
GAINESVILLE, FLA.

Associate Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Florida Medical Center.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Aug. 10, 1962.

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