, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 240–254 | Cite as

Pompholyx (Epidermophytosis, Dermatophytosis, Ringworm of the feet, infectious eczematoid dermatitis or ringworm, dyshidrosis)

A statistical contribution to the solution of the pending problems
  • T. Benedek


„Pompholyx” as the oldest term for this disease in medical terminology, connoting a recurrent vesicular eruption on palms and soles, is recommended for general use in replacing a number of prejudicial terms connecting this condition either with a hypothetical and long reputed dysfunction of the sweat glands: dyshidrosis or with the causative role of fungi: epidermophytosis.

Publications of statistical investigations pertaining to the subject are reviewed. They show the amazing low percentage of pathogenic fungi which could be recovered in this condition.

Among clinically active cases, the lesions were microscopically negative in the ratio of 10% to 37%.

Clinically active and microscopically fungus-positive cases yielded from 80% to 95 % negative cultural results.

The present study of 983 cases showed 1.9% clinically active lesions on the feet. Microscopically and culturally all these cases were negative for any kind of pathogenic fungi.

During the camping period in mid-summer 1940, from June to late August, no prophylactic measures were taken to kill the fungi or to prevent their dissemination in locker rooms, on runways or shower rooms.

Despite this attitude there was no spread of fungi, no dissemination of infecting agents and no outburst of an epidemic of „epidermophytosis”.


Sweat Gland Swimming Pool Dermatophytosis Fungus Infection Fungal Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews G. C. and Birkman F. W., New York State J. Med., 31, 1029–1031, (1931).Google Scholar
  2. Becker S. W. and Ritchie E. B., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 22, 790, (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedek T., Dermat. Wochschr., 89, 1355–1357, (1929).Google Scholar
  4. Benedek T., Dermat. Ztschr., 60, 58–66, (1930).Google Scholar
  5. Benedek T., Dermat. Wchschr., 90, 633–641, (1930).Google Scholar
  6. Benedek T., Dermat. Wchschr., 90, 166–177, (1930).Google Scholar
  7. Benedek T., J. Trop. Med., 42, 81–86, (1939).Google Scholar
  8. Benedek T., Mycopathologia, 1, 26–40, (1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benedek T., Ztschr. f. Geburtsh. u. Gynäk., 104, 119–140, (1932).Google Scholar
  10. Benedek T., Acta dermat.-venereol., 12, 38–80, (1931).Google Scholar
  11. Benedek T., Acta dermat.-venereol., 13, 150–200, (1932).Google Scholar
  12. Benedek T., IX Congr. Internat. Dermatolog., Budapest, 1935, 2, 986–987, (1935).Google Scholar
  13. Bruhns und Alexander, Allgemeine Mykologie in Jadassohn's Handbuch d. Haut- u. Geschlechtskr., XI, I, Springer, Berlin, (1928).Google Scholar
  14. Butler C. S., Houghton J. E. and Cooper G. F., U. S. Nav. Med. Bull., 21, 615–630, (1924).Google Scholar
  15. Cremer G., Arch. f. Dermat. u. Syphil., 169, 244–258, (1933).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox T., Amer. J. Dermat., 4, 1–8, (1873).Google Scholar
  17. Fraser P. K., J. Trop. Med., 42, 141–145, (1939).Google Scholar
  18. Gilman R. L., Pennsylvania Med. J., April (1933).Google Scholar
  19. Graffenried v., Dermat. Wchschr., 66, 21, (1918).Google Scholar
  20. Griff, Fanny and Itkin, Acta Dermat.-venereol., 11, 508, (1930).Google Scholar
  21. Hopkins J. G., Pennsylvania Med. J., March, (1938).Google Scholar
  22. Hulsey S. H. and Jordan F. M., Am. J. Med. Sci., 169, 267, (1925).Google Scholar
  23. Kadisch E., Dermat. Wchschr., 89, 1423–1433, (1929).Google Scholar
  24. Kaufmann-Wolff M., Dermat. Ztschr., 21, (1914).Google Scholar
  25. Legge R. T., Bonar Lee and Templeton H. J., J. Amer. Med. Ass., 92, 1507, (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Legge R. T., Bonar Lee and Templeton, J. Amer. Med. Ass., 93, 17, (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacKee G. M. and Lewis G. M., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 23, 445, (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson A. R., Arch. Dermat., 3, 289–303, July 1877, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Strickler A. and Friedman R., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 24, 430–445, (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weidman F. D., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 15, 415–450, (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. White C. J., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 20, 315–319, (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams C. M., Arch. Dermat. a. Syphil., 15, 541, (1927).Google Scholar
  33. Williams J. W., Urol. a. Cutan. Rev., 41, (2), (1937).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk Den Haag 1943

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Benedek
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Salvation Army Free DispensaryNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicago
  2. 2.Laboratory for Mycological Research Department of DermatologyNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicago

Personalised recommendations