These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy of topical honey compared to systemic gentamicin for treatment of infected war wounds in a porcine model: A non-inferiority experimental pilot study.
    Author: Muhrbeck M, Wladis A, Lampi M, Andersson P, Junker JPE.
    Journal: Injury; 2022 Feb; 53(2):381-392. PubMed ID: 34756413.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: In armed conflicts, infected wounds constitute a large portion of the surgical workload. Treatment consists of debridements, change of dressings, and antibiotics. Many surgeons advocate for the use of honey as an adjunct with the rationale that honey has bactericidal and hyperosmotic properties. However, according to a Cochrane review from 2015 there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions regarding the efficacy of honey in treatment of wounds. We, therefore, decided to evaluate if honey is non-inferior to gentamicin in the treatment of infected wounds in a highly translatable porcine wound model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 50 standardized wounds on two pigs were infected with S. aureus and separately treated with either topically applied Manuka honey or intramuscular gentamicin for eight days. Treatment efficacy was evaluated with quantitative cultures, wound area measurements, histological, immunohistochemical assays, and inflammatory response. RESULTS: Topically applied Manuka honey did not reduce bacterial count or wound area for the duration of treatment. Intramuscular gentamicin initially reduced bacterial count (geometric mean 5.59*¸0.37 - 4.27*¸0.80 log10 (GSD) CFU/g), but this was not sustained for the duration of the treatment. However, wound area was significantly reduced with intramuscular gentamicin at the end of treatment (mean 112.8 ± 30.0-67.7 ± 13.2 (SD) mm2). ANOVA-analysis demonstrated no variation in bacterial count for the two treatments but significant variation in wound area (p<0.0001). The inflammatory response was more persistent in the pig with wounds treated with topically applied Manuka honey than in the pig treated with intramuscular gentamicin. CONCLUSION: At the end of treatment S. aureus count was the same with topically applied Manuka honey and intramuscular gentamicin. The wound area was unchanged with topically applied Manuka honey and decreased with intramuscular gentamicin. Topically applied Manuka honey could consequently be non-inferior to intramuscular gentamicin in reducing S. aureus colonization on the wound's surface, but not in reducing wound size. The use of Manuka honey dressings to prevent further progression of a wound infection may therefore be of value in armed conflicts, where definite care is not immediately available.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]