• Andrea S Bischofberger, Christina M Dart, Nigel R Perkins, Ashley Kelly, Leo Jeffcott, and Andrew J Dart.
• Biomedical Research and Clinical Trials Unit, University Veterinary Teaching Hospital Camden, University of Sydney, Camden, Australia.
• Vet Surg. 2013 Feb 1; 42 (2): 154-60.

ObjectivesTo compare the effects of manuka honey and manuka honey gel on second intention healing of noncontaminated distal limb wounds and those contaminated with feces.Study DesignExperimental study.AnimalsStandardbred horses (n = 10).MethodsFive full-thickness wounds (2 × 2 cm) were created on both metacarpi. Wounds on 1 forelimb were covered with horse feces for 24 hours. Wounds on the contralateral limb were left uncontaminated. Wounds were assigned to the following 5 different treatments: manuka honey, manuka honey gel or gel applied for 12 days, manuka honey gel applied throughout healing and untreated control. Wound area was measured on day 1 then weekly until day 42 and time to complete healing was recorded.ResultsWounds treated with manuka honey gel throughout healing healed faster than all other wounds (P < .05). Wounds treated with manuka honey and manuka honey gel for 12 days healed faster than gel control and untreated control wounds (P < .05). Wounds treated with manuka honey and manuka honey gel for 12 days and throughout healing were smaller than gel control and untreated control wounds until day 35 (P < .05). Wounds contaminated with feces had greater retraction for 7 days, but healed faster than noncontaminated wounds (P < .05).ConclusionsTreatment of wounds with manuka honey and manuka honey gel reduced wound retraction and overall healing time compared with gel and untreated control wounds.© Copyright 2012 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.

16 keywords...

hide…