Department of Surgery in Norrköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Center for Disaster Medicine and Traumatology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Center for Disaster Medicine and Traumatology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Injury. 2022 Feb;53(2):381-392. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.10.019. Epub 2021 Oct 21.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在武装冲突中,感染伤口构成了外科手术工作量的很大一部分。治疗包括清创、更换敷料和使用抗生素。许多外科医生主张使用蜂蜜作为辅助治疗,其理论依据是蜂蜜具有杀菌和高渗的特性。然而,根据 2015 年的一项 Cochrane 综述,没有足够的数据来得出关于蜂蜜在治疗伤口方面的疗效的任何结论。因此,我们决定在一个高度可转化的猪伤口模型中评估蜂蜜是否不比庆大霉素在治疗感染伤口方面更差。
在两头猪身上的 50 个标准化伤口感染了金黄色葡萄球菌,分别用局部涂抹的麦卢卡蜂蜜或肌肉内注射庆大霉素治疗 8 天。通过定量培养、伤口面积测量、组织学、免疫组织化学检测和炎症反应来评估治疗效果。
在整个治疗期间,局部应用麦卢卡蜂蜜并未减少细菌数量或伤口面积。肌肉内注射庆大霉素最初降低了细菌数量(几何均数 5.59*¸0.37-4.27*¸0.80log10(GSD)CFU/g),但在整个治疗期间并未持续降低。然而,在治疗结束时,肌肉内注射庆大霉素显著减少了伤口面积(平均 112.8±30.0-67.7±13.2(SD)mm2)。方差分析显示,两种治疗方法的细菌计数没有差异,但伤口面积有显著差异(p<0.0001)。在局部应用麦卢卡蜂蜜治疗的猪中,炎症反应比在肌肉内注射庆大霉素治疗的猪更持久。
在治疗结束时,局部应用麦卢卡蜂蜜和肌肉内注射庆大霉素的金黄色葡萄球菌数量相同。局部应用麦卢卡蜂蜜治疗的伤口面积没有变化,而肌肉内注射庆大霉素治疗的伤口面积减少。因此,局部应用麦卢卡蜂蜜敷料在减少伤口表面金黄色葡萄球菌定植方面可能不劣于肌肉内注射庆大霉素,但在减少伤口大小方面则不然。在武装冲突中,在无法立即获得明确治疗的情况下,使用麦卢卡蜂蜜敷料来防止伤口感染进一步恶化可能具有价值。