medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2005, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2005; 27 (2)

Model for the quantitative evaluation of cicatrization. Pilot study with bee honey

Gutiérrez SC, Castañón GC, Güitrón SA, Vega MJA

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 114-119
PDF size: 82.86 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction:General and local factors mediate healing. Management of wounds uses different procedures and admixtures, whose efficacy is sometimes difficult to evaluate.
Objective:The purpose of this work was to design and create a model for the quantitative evaluation of superficial wound healing. To validate it through comparing the effect of physiologic saline solution irrigation versus the administration of bee honey.
Setting:School of Medicine.
Material and methods:A 2 X 2 cm square milimetric scale was devised in the Paint program of Windows,® to where digital photographs of wounds were overlaid through the Photo editor of Microsoft.® Wound edges were lined up to those of the quadrangle scale in order to measure wound area at different intervals. A 2 X 2 cm piece of tissue, including skin and muscle, was excised on the back of 20 Wistar rats. Wound cleansing was performed with either saline solution in group I (n = 10), or bee honey in group II (n = 10). Photographs were obtained and wound area measured at 0, 24, and 72 hours; and at 7 and 14 days after the beginning of the experiment. Results were compared between both groups and statistical difference was evaluated through Chi Square.
Results:This model was useful to measure wound area in the photographs. This pilot study demonstrated that decrease in wound size was more important with bee honey (group II) than with physiologic solution (group I), p ‹ 0.05 at 24 and 72 hours. Nine wounds had healed at 7 seven days in group II and 8 wounds in group I.
Conclusion:This is a feasible, reproducible and reliable model to evaluate quantitatively superficial wound healing; which was better with honey in comparison with saline irrigation alone. This model may be useful to evaluate and compare other procedures and admixtures.


REFERENCES

  1. Barbul A, Reagan CM. Physiology of wound healing. In: Fisher EJ. Surgical basic science. St. Louis: Mosby; 1993: 67, 89.

  2. Hunt KT, Mueller VR, Goodson HV. Cicatrización de las heridas. En: Way WL. Diagnóstico y tratamiento quirúrgicos. 7ª ed. México: El Manual Moderno; 1995: 99.

  3. Stone HH, Haney BB, Kolb LB, Geheber CE, Hooper CA. Prophylactic and preventive antibiotic therapy: timing, duration and economics. Ann Surg 1979; 189: 691-9.

  4. Bergman A, Yanai J, Weiss J, Bell D, David MP. Acceleration of wound healing by topical application of honey. An animal model. Am J Surg 1983; 143: 74-6.

  5. Oseguera RJ, Vega-Malagón G, Gutiérrez-Samperio C, Vega-Malagón AJ. Estudio comparativo entre la miel y dextranómeros en el manejo de las heridas abdominales infectadas. Gac Med Qro 2002; 11: 6.

  6. Álvarez-Cordero R, Lua-Rodríguez T, Ávila-Jiménez CR, Quijano-Orvañanos F, Robledo-Ogazón F, Sánchez-Muñoz M. Dextranómeros: un nuevo enfoque al tratamiento de las heridas infectadas. Gac Med Mex 1979; 115: 301-6.

  7. Gutiérrez-Samperio C, Vera-García FJ, Figueroa-Cárdenas JD, Gallegos-Corona MA. Bioprótesis de pericardio bovino tratado con glutaraldehído (PBTG) en la reconstrucción de la pared abdominal. Cir Cir 2002; 70: 257-66.

  8. Gutiérrez R, Ortiz I, Amancio O, Rodríguez A. Efecto de la miel aplicada tópicamente; sobre la cicatrización en heridas infectadas. Modelo experimental. Rev Med Hosp Gen 1995; 58: 101-4.

  9. Cooper RA, Molan PC, Harding KG. Antibacterial activity of honey against strains of Staphylococcus aureus from infected wounds. J R Soc Med 1999; 92: 283-5.

  10. Tonelli RM, Callahan CT. Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based. Acad Med 2001; 76: 1213-20.

  11. Bloom SP. What is this nonsence that complementary and alternative medicine is not amenable to controlled investigation for population effect? Acad Med 2001; 76: 1221-3.

  12. Mills EJ, Hollyer T, Guyantt G, Ross CP, Saranchuck R, Wilson K, et al. Teaching evidence-based medicine complementary and alternative medicine: 1. a learning structure for clinical decision changes. J Altern Complement Med 2002; 8: 207-14.

  13. Puchalski CM. Reconnecting the science and art medicine. Acad Med 2001; 76: 1224-5.

  14. De Smet PA. Herbal remedies. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2046-56.

  15. Straus ES. Herbal medicines-what’s is in the bottle? N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1997-8.

  16. Park CM. Diversity, the individual, and proof of efficacy: complementary and alternative medicine in medical education. Am J Pub Health 2002; 92: 1568-72.

  17. Kostoff R. The extraction of useful information from biomedical literature. Acad Med 2001; 76: 1265-70.

  18. Luengas MJ, Gallegos CMA, Chávez RA, Flores AD. Estudio comparativo del efecto antiinflamatorio del árnica y diclofenaco. Modelo experimental de inflamación. Gac Med Qro 1999; 9: 27.

  19. Gutiérrez-Samperio C. El modelo experimental en cirugía. Perspectiva histórica. Cir Gen 2000; 22: 272-8.

  20. Ávila-Jiménez CR. Modelo experimental en animales para la producción de adherencias peritoneales. (Tesis). Querétaro (Mex): Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro; 2004.

  21. Holmdahl L, al- Jabreen M, Risberg B. Experimental models for quantitative studies on adhesions formation in rats and rabbits. Eur Surg Res 1994; 26: 248-56.

  22. Dalen EJ. “Conventional” and “unconventional” medicine: can they be integrated? Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2179-81.

  23. Gundling KE. When did I becom “allopath”? Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2185-6.

  24. Winslow CL, Kroll DJ. Herbs as medicines. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2192-9.

  25. White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. Randomized trial acupuncture for nicotine withdrawal. Symptoms. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2251-5.

  26. Marcus DM, Grollman AP. Botanical medicines—the need for new regulations. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2073-6.

  27. Harlan WR Jr. Research on complementary and alternative medicine using randomized controlled trials. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7 Suppl. 1: S45-52.

  28. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Alternative therapy bias. Nature 1997; 385: 480.

  29. Ernst E. Research into complementary/alternative medicine: an attempt to dispel the myths. Int J Clin Pract 2001; 55: 376-9.

  30. Verhoeff MJ, Casebeer AL, Hildsden RJ. Assessing efficacy of complementary medicine: adding qualitative research methods of the “Gold standard”. J Altern Complement Med 2002; 8: 275-81.

  31. Adusumulli SP, Ben-Portat L, Peeira M, Roesler D, Leitman MT. The prevalence and predictors of herbal medicine in surgical patients. J Ann Coll Surg 2004; 198: 583.

  32. Villarejo-Díaz M, Arenas-Osuna J. Medicina tradicional y medicina basada en evidencias. Educ Invest Clin 2000; 1: 78-9.

  33. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson SW. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-2.

  34. De Smet PA. Health risks of herbal remedies. Drug Saf 1995; 13: 81-93.

  35. Cassidy CM. Social science theory and methods in the study of alternative and complementary medicine. J Altern Complement Med 1995; 1: 19-40.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com