Angiomas of the Scrotum (Angiokeratoma, Fordyce)

Modem Ointment Base Technology II.:Comparative Evaluation of Bases*

“…It has already been shown that when skin irritation is used as a criterion (2) the ion-exchange resins behaved exactly as might have been predicted from the laboratory data. In addition, 3y0 ointments of salicylic acid in Plastibase hydrophilic, white petrolatum, petrolatum-cholesterol, polyethylene glycol ointment, and in a washable base were applied to the back of a volunteer and left in place for 24 hours (5). Only the Plastibase hydrophilic and the petrolatumcholesterol ointments gave a positive reaction.…”

Angiokeratoma of the Scrotum (Fordyce)

“…As a rule they cause no symptoms. In regard to the causation of this dermatosis, it has been considered that there is often a history of preceding venous obstruction in the form of varicocele, tumor of the epididymis, hernia, hernioplasty or postoperative trauma of the venous system resulting in venous occlusion (14) or of chronic inflammation in the scrotum such as seen in chronic eczema (12). In my observed cases no history of the causes leading to this condition was noticed, and furthermore we could find no evidence proving that this dermatosis was related to a preceding history of pernio or of frostbite as in angiokeratoma of Mibelli.…”

“…But no evidences of inflammatory reactions are noticeable.COMMENTAfter careful studies, Mibelli reported in 1889 a disease of the skin usually located on the hands and feet chiefly on the dorsal sides of the fingers and toes and characterized by telangiectatic and warty lesions in persons having history of pernio as "angiokeratoma Mibelli". Fordyce, in 1896, regarded his case described as "angiokeratoma of the scrotum" as an atypical case of angiokeratoma Mibelli .In 1925 Hudelo(14) stressed the fact that a definite differentiation must be made between Mibelli's case and Fordyce's case. LaterWile and Belote (1928)(25),Traub and Tolmach (1931)(20),Robinson and Tasker (1946)(14) and others discussed the same problem.…”

“…Fordyce, in 1896, regarded his case described as "angiokeratoma of the scrotum" as an atypical case of angiokeratoma Mibelli .In 1925 Hudelo(14) stressed the fact that a definite differentiation must be made between Mibelli's case and Fordyce's case. LaterWile and Belote (1928)(25),Traub and Tolmach (1931)(20),Robinson and Tasker (1946)(14) and others discussed the same problem. In Japan reports discussing the differences between these two dermatosis were made byTohyama (1907)(19), T.Itoh (1908)(7), Sasakawa (1908)(1), Matsumoto (1915)(9), Sakaguchi and Odaka (1917)(16) and M. Itoh (1924)(6).…”