Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Skin Reactions Following Exposure to Roentgen Rays

Skin Reactions Following Exposure to Roentgen Rays Skin Reactions Following Exposure to Roentgen Rays I. A Comparison of the Effect of Two Different Wave Lengths on the Skin of Rats Ernst A. Pohle , M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.R. , Professor of Radiology and C. H. Bunting , M.D. , Professor of Pathology University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin Excerpt THE histological changes in the skin following exposure to roentgen rays have been studied by many investigators; a good review of the present status of our knowledge on that subject was given recently by Schinz and Slotopolsky (1). As these authors admit, however, in spite of the enormous amount of work done in that field, many questions still remain unanswered. The problem has attracted new interest during the last three years because of the revival of the use of supersoft roentgen rays in skin therapy, by Bucky (2). Rather enthusiastic claims in the earlier publications have given place lately to a more conservative attitude (3). One of the fundamental questions under discussion concerns the effect of supersoft rays on the skin and on the capillaries. Bucky, himself, asserts that “Grenz rays,” as he calls the radiation produced at potentials of 6 K.V. to 12 K.V., are absorbed in the upper layers of the skin and do not reach the capillaries in the subcutis. Gabriel (4), however, observed with the skin microscope identical behavior of the capillaries in the erythema are a as following irradiation by roentgen rays ordinarily used in therapy. He emphasizes that for potentials of 8 K.V. and below 8 K.V., very little capillary reaction and almost no visible erythema are produced by even relatively high doses. This is due to the fact that these rays of long wave length do not reach the deeper capillary layers in sufficient quantity. Histological studies on human skin by Martenstein and Juon (5) and Rottmann (6) led to identical results 1 while in Bucky's own experiments (3), the vascular changes following exposure to Grenz rays were negligible. He used a potential of 8 K.V. and a dose of 675 r-units; his findings agree, then, with the latest capillary microscopic observations of Gabriel (4). So far as we have been able to ascertain, all histological studies comparing the effect of ordinary roentgen rays 2 and supersoft roentgen rays were carried out on different individuals. It seems logical that a more accurate procedure would be the exposure of two neighboring skin areas in the same individual to the two different types of radiation. This would not only rule out individual variations but also variations due to a different sensitivity in various parts of the body. While human skin is undoubtedly the most desirable test object, it would be rather difficult to perform the large number of biopsies required for such an investigation in men. Animal skin, which is, of course, easily available, has an entirely different sensitivity to radiation from that of human skin. Although a number of investigators have given the equivalent erythema doses, for instance, for rats and rabbits, the results obtained in animals are not directly transferable to human beings. There has been a tendency lately to reject the results of animal experiments so far as their relation to human radiobiology and radiopathology is concerned. Copyrighted by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Radiology Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Skin Reactions Following Exposure to Roentgen Rays

Radiology , Volume 13 (6): 496 – Dec 1, 1929

Loading next page...
 
/lp/radiological-society-of-north-america-inc/skin-reactions-following-exposure-to-roentgen-rays-0qlluikY27

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
Copyright
Copyright © 1929 by Radiological Society of North America
ISSN
1527-1315
eISSN
0033-8419
DOI
10.1148/13.6.496
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Skin Reactions Following Exposure to Roentgen Rays I. A Comparison of the Effect of Two Different Wave Lengths on the Skin of Rats Ernst A. Pohle , M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.R. , Professor of Radiology and C. H. Bunting , M.D. , Professor of Pathology University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin Excerpt THE histological changes in the skin following exposure to roentgen rays have been studied by many investigators; a good review of the present status of our knowledge on that subject was given recently by Schinz and Slotopolsky (1). As these authors admit, however, in spite of the enormous amount of work done in that field, many questions still remain unanswered. The problem has attracted new interest during the last three years because of the revival of the use of supersoft roentgen rays in skin therapy, by Bucky (2). Rather enthusiastic claims in the earlier publications have given place lately to a more conservative attitude (3). One of the fundamental questions under discussion concerns the effect of supersoft rays on the skin and on the capillaries. Bucky, himself, asserts that “Grenz rays,” as he calls the radiation produced at potentials of 6 K.V. to 12 K.V., are absorbed in the upper layers of the skin and do not reach the capillaries in the subcutis. Gabriel (4), however, observed with the skin microscope identical behavior of the capillaries in the erythema are a as following irradiation by roentgen rays ordinarily used in therapy. He emphasizes that for potentials of 8 K.V. and below 8 K.V., very little capillary reaction and almost no visible erythema are produced by even relatively high doses. This is due to the fact that these rays of long wave length do not reach the deeper capillary layers in sufficient quantity. Histological studies on human skin by Martenstein and Juon (5) and Rottmann (6) led to identical results 1 while in Bucky's own experiments (3), the vascular changes following exposure to Grenz rays were negligible. He used a potential of 8 K.V. and a dose of 675 r-units; his findings agree, then, with the latest capillary microscopic observations of Gabriel (4). So far as we have been able to ascertain, all histological studies comparing the effect of ordinary roentgen rays 2 and supersoft roentgen rays were carried out on different individuals. It seems logical that a more accurate procedure would be the exposure of two neighboring skin areas in the same individual to the two different types of radiation. This would not only rule out individual variations but also variations due to a different sensitivity in various parts of the body. While human skin is undoubtedly the most desirable test object, it would be rather difficult to perform the large number of biopsies required for such an investigation in men. Animal skin, which is, of course, easily available, has an entirely different sensitivity to radiation from that of human skin. Although a number of investigators have given the equivalent erythema doses, for instance, for rats and rabbits, the results obtained in animals are not directly transferable to human beings. There has been a tendency lately to reject the results of animal experiments so far as their relation to human radiobiology and radiopathology is concerned. Copyrighted by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Journal

RadiologyRadiological Society of North America, Inc.

Published: Dec 1, 1929

There are no references for this article.