[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
May 10, 1902


Author Affiliations

Late of Pharmacological Institute, University of Heidelberg; Member of American Therapeutic Society.; Late of Chemical Institute, Heidelberg; Formerly Assistant, Physiological Institute, Würzburg. PHILADELPHIA.

JAMA. 1902;XXXVIII(19):1207-1208. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.62480190013001b

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Whatever interest the manifold substitutes for iodoform may have for the surgeon or dermatologist, they are too similar in chemical construction and attributes to claim the serious attention of the scientific pharmacologist familiar with the laws of the relationship between chemical constitution and physiologic activity; the latter knows that clinically they must be of practically identical worth and have all the same limitations, disadvantages or dangers. Surgeons employ the odoriferous, toxic, non-antiseptic iodoform in the treatment of infected wounds because they know that not one of the substitutes is of equal value in cleaning the wound of the products of septic and necrotic processes and in stimulating healthy granulation. Aside from the stigmatizing odor of iodoform, the need of a substitute therefor has received additional emphasis by the fact that within comparatively recent times surgeons everywhere have frequently recorded more or less severe forms of headache, with or without anuria

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview