Comparison between topical honey and mafenide acetate in treatment of auricular burn

• Published in: American journal of otolaryngology 2011, Vol.32 (1), p.28-31
• Main Authors: Hashemi, Basir, MD, Bayat, Akbar, MD, Kazemei, Tayebe, MD, Azarpira, Negar, MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - pharmacology; Ayurvedic medicine; Biopsy; Burns - drug therapy; Ear, External - injuries; Honey; Hydrogen peroxide; Injuries; Mafenide - pharmacology; Male; Otolaryngology; Rabbits; Staphylococcus infections; Statistics, Nonparametric; Surgery; Wound Healing; Wound Infection - prevention & control
• ISSN: 0196-0709; 1532-818X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2009.07.005

Abstract The auricle is a frequently injured part of the head and neck during thermal injury leading to ear deformity. The burned ear represents one of the most difficult problems for reconstructive surgeons. Mafenide acetate is a topical agent used routinely for these patients, but it has some disadvantages including painful application and allergic rash. Some authors have reported the healing effect and antibacterial activity of honey. The study reported here was undertaken to compare the effect of honey and mafenide acetate on auricular burn in rabbit. In our study, although the pathologic score of the honey group was better than that of the mafenide group both on 14 and 21 days after burning, it was not statistically significant. In the mafenide acetate group, deep complication of burn (chondritis) was significantly lower than that of the honey group. In conclusion, in contrast to healing and antibiotic activity reported for honey, it may have failure in preventing deep bacterial complications of wound (like chondritis). So in deep wounds, the use of honey as dressing is not recommended.