|
|
|
|
|
Telephone: +64 7 838 4325
Fax: +64 7 838 4324
In many of the reports the effectiveness of honey as a dressing on infected wounds is attributed in part to its antibacterial properties (1, 5, 7, 9, 11-29). But the large volume of published literature from in vitro studies that has established that honey has significant antibacterial activity will not be included in this review as it has been comprehensively reviewed elsewhere (30, 31). However, it is noted here for the interest of the reader that honeys with median levels of antibacterial activity have been found to completely inhibit the major wound-infecting species of bacteria at concentrations of 1.8% - 11% (v/v) (32), and a collection of strains of strains of MRSA at concentrations of 1% - 4% (v/v) (33).
In many of the reports the honey is spread on the wound then covered with a dry dressing, mostly gauze (5, 8-10, 13, 14, 17-21, 29, 37-40). The quantity of honey used varies: one reported using a thin smear of honey (but with relatively poor outcomes); two reported using a thin layer honey (but this was applied 2 - 3 times daily) (13, 34); most just refer to the honey being spread or poured over the wound (9, 14, 17-19, 21, 37); others report using a thick layer of honey (41), soaking the wound generously with honey (23), pouring honey into the wound to three-quarters fill (29), and applying 15-30 ml of honey to ulcers (7, 20). Others have applied the honey to the dressing then placed it on the wound: either the honey was spread on gauze (10, 23, 35, 37) or the gauze was soaked in honey (15, 16, 21), or "honey pads" were used (36). (It has also been reported that covering cracked sore nipples in nursing mothers with gauze soaked in honey can prevent them from becoming infected (42 ) Honey-impregnated gauze has also been used to pack cavities of wounds (20). Others have packed cavities of wound directly with honey and then covered the wound (10, 21, 23). Cervical ulcerations stubborn to healing have been treated by inserting 85 ml honey in the vagina and holding this in place with a tampon for 3 days (42).
Mostly the dressings are changed daily (7-10, 14, 21, 23, 35, 39, 41) or every 2 days (15-18, 38): or every 2 - 3 days (40). One paper reported that dressings were changed daily, but that less frequent changes (every 2 - 3 days) were needed if the wounds were clean and dry (41). Another reported dressings being changed once or twice daily until clean granulated wounds were achieved, then once-daily changes (37). Others have reported changing honey dressings twice daily (13, 19, 22), 2 - 3 times a day (34), 3 times daily (28, 36), and 3 times daily if contaminated with urine or faeces, otherwise twice daily (29).
Two papers report mixing lipid material with the honey to make it easier to spread; either castor oil (23) or 20% vaseline or lard (41). Although this was a common form of wound dressing in ancient times, it is not necessary as honey can be made very fluid by warming to 37°C if vigorous stirring is not sufficient. Bulman (21) refers to using liquid honey on large surfaces, or carefully warming granulated honey. (Excessive heating of honey should be avoided because the glucose oxidase enzyme in honey which produces hydrogen peroxide, a major component of the antibacterial activity of honey, is very readily inactivated by heat (43).)
Honey has also been found to act as a barrier preventing wounds from becoming infected (7, 14, 15, 24, 45), preventing cross-infection (23), and allowing burn wound tissue to heal rapidly uninhibited by secondary infection (7, 42).
It has been reported that sloughs, gangrenous tissue and necrotic tissue are rapidly replaced with granulation tissue and advancing epithelialisation when honey is used as a dressing (7), thus a minimum of surgical debridement is required (19). It has been observed that under honey dressings sloughs, necrotic and gangrenous tissue separated so that they could be lifted off painlessly (7), and others have noted quick and easy separation of sloughs (10, 21) and removal of crust from a wound (10). Rapid cleansing (9) and chemical or enzymic debridement resulting from the application of honey to wounds have also been reported (14, 15, 17, 20, 36), with no eschar forming on burns (18). Several other authors have noted the cleansing effect of honey on wounds (21, 23, 29, 35, 40, 46). It has also been noted that dirt is removed with the bandage when honey is used as a dressing, leaving a clean wound (39). Honey has also been reported to give deodorisation of offensively smelling wounds ( 7, 13-15, 20, 36, 45).
Honey used as a wound dressing has been reported to promote the formation of clean healthy granulation tissue (7, 10, 18-20, 23, 28, 29, 34, 35, 41, 46), allowing early grafting on a clean clear base (9). It has also been reported to promote epithelialisation of the wound (7, 16, 18, 20, 36, 41). Dumronglert (29) commented that the rapid growth of new tissue is remarkable. Improvement of nutrition of wounds has been observed (7), also increased blood flow has been noted in wounds (29), and free flow of lymph (21).
Several authors have commented on the rapidity of healing seen with honey dressings. Descottes (38) refers to wounds becoming closed in a spectacular fashion in 90% of cases, sometimes in a few days. Burlando (47) refers to healing being surprisingly rapid, especially for first and second degree burns. Blomfield (40) is of the opinion that honey promotes healing of ulcers and burns better than any other local application used before. Bergman (24) has observed clinically that healing in open wounds is faster with honey, as has Hamdy (48) who also found that it accelerated making wounds suitable for suture.
It has been noted that dressing wound with honey allows early grafting on a clean clear base (9), with prompt graft taking (23, 35). It has also been reported that it reduces the incidence of skin graft areas (45) and helps skin regenerate, making plastic reconstruction unnecessary (20, 36). Others also have noted that skin grafting is found to be unnecessary (18, 19). It has also been reported that dressing wounds with honey gives little or no scarring (20).
Another effect of honey on wounds that has been noted is that it reduces inflammation (18, 47) and hastens subsidence of passive hyperaemia (41). It also reduces oedema (7, 17, 20, 29, 41) and exudation (7, 20, 47), absorbing fluid from the wound (36). Honey is reported to be soothing when applied to wounds (15, 39, 49)] and to reduced pain from burns (15, 47), in some cases giving rapid diminution of local pain (41).
Honey is reported to cause no pain on dressing (21, 45) or to cause only momentary stinging (21), to be non-irritating (17, 19, 21, 46), to cause no allergic reaction (7, 13, 16, 23), and to have no harmful effects on tissues (7, 13, 17, 21, 23).
It has been noted that honey dressings are easy to apply and remove (23, 35, 40). There is no adhesion to cause damage to the granulating surface of wounds (18, 21, 45), no difficulty removing dressings (15), and no bleeding when removing dressings (15). Any residual honey is easily removed by simple bathing (44).
In another study on experimental burns (47), superficial burns created with a red-hot pin (15 mm2) on the skin of rats were treated with honey or with a sugar solution with a composition similar to honey. Healing was seen histologically to be more active and advanced with honey than with no treatment or the sugar solution. The time taken for complete repair of the wound was significantly less (p<0.01) with honey than with no treatment or with the sugar solution, and necrosis was never so serious. Treatment with honey gave a clearly seen attenuation of inflammation and exudation and a rapid regeneration of outer epithelial tissue and rapid cicatrisation.
In another experimental study on animals, full-thickness wounds were created by cutting away 2x4 cm pieces of skin on the backs of buffalo calves (50). The wounds were dressed with honey or nitrofurazone, or with sterilised petrolatum as a control. Granulation, scar formation, and complete healing occurred faster with honey than with nitrofurazone and in the control. Histomorphological examination of biopsy samples revealed more marked acute inflammatory changes in the wounds in the control and with nitrofurazone than with honey, and less proliferation of fibroblasts and angioblasts.
In another experimental study on buffalo calves (12) full-thickness skin wounds, 2x4 cm, were made after infecting the area of each wound by subcutaneous injection of Staphylococcus aureus two days prior to wounding. Topical application of honey, ampicillin ointment, and saline as a control were compared as treatment for the wounds. Clinical examination of the wounds and histomorphological examination of biopsy samples showed that honey gave the fastest rate of healing compared with the other treatments, the least inflammatory reaction, the most rapid fibroblastic and angioblastic activity in the wounds, the fastest laying down of fibrous connective tissue, and the fastest epithelialisation.
An experimental study carried out using mice (24) also compared honey with saline dressings, on wounds made by excising skin (10x10 mm) down to muscle. Histological examination showed that the thickness of granulation tissue and the distance of epithelialisation from the edge of the wound were significantly greater, and the area of the wound significantly smaller, in those treated with honey (p<0.001). None showed gross clinical infection (honey or control).
In another study, on rats (51, 52), a 10 mm long incision was made in the skin of each rat and the wounds were treated topically or orally with floral honey, honey from bees fed on sugar, or saline. A statistically significant increase in the rate of healing was seen with the treatment with floral honey compared with the saline control, this being greater with oral than with topical administration. The treatment with honey from bees fed on sugar, whilst initially giving a greater rate of healing, after 9 days gave results no better than those obtained with the saline control. The granulation, epithelialisation and fibrous tissue seen histologically reflected the rate of healing measured as decrease in wound length. The infiltration of granulation tissue with chronic inflammatory cells was greatest in the wounds treated with honey from bees fed on sugar, less in those treated topically with floral honey, and least in those treated orally with floral honey.
Oral and topical application of honey were compared in another study on rats (53), in which full-thickness 2x2 cm skin wounds were made on the backs of the rats by cutting away the skin. The rats were treated with topical application of honey to the wound, oral administration of honey, or intraperitoneal administration of honey, or untreated as a control. After seven days of treatment, tritiated proline was injected subcutaneously to serve as an indicator of collagen synthesis in the subsequent 24 hour period. Both the quantity of collagen synthesised and the degree of cross-linking of the collagen in the granulation tissue were found to have increased significantly compared with the untreated control as a result of treatment with honey (p<0.001). Systemic treatment gave greater increases than topical treatment, the intraperitoneal route giving a better result than the oral route.
In a similarly conducted study following this (54), the rats were treated in the same way, but different parameters were studied to assess healing. The granulation tissue that had formed was excised from the wounds for biochemical and biophysical measurement of wound healing. The content of DNA, protein, collagen, hexosamine and uronic acid, and the tensile strength, stress-strain behaviour, rate of contraction, and the rate of epithelialisation were found to have increased significantly as a result of treatment with honey (p<0.05 – <0.001). Systemic treatment gave greater increases than topical treatment, the intraperitoneal route giving the best results.
A similar study, but with less detail given, was carried out on 40 patients, half of which had been treated with another antiseptic which had failed (9). The wounds were of mixed aetiology: surgical, accidental, infective, trophic, and burns; the average size of the wounds was 57 cm2. One third of the wounds were purulent, the rest were red with a whitish coat. The number of microorganism isolates from the wounds dropped from 48 to 14 after two weeks of treatment. Seven of the patients had necrotic tissue excised after treatment with honey, and three of these had skin grafts. It was noted that the honey delimited the boundaries of the wounds and cleansed the wounds rapidly to allow this. Of the 33 patients treated only with honey dressings, 29 were healed successfully, with good quality healing, in an average time of 5 - 6 weeks. Of the four cases where successful healing was not achieved, two were attributed to the poor general quality of the patients who were suffering from im munodepression, one was withdrawn from treatment with honey because of a painful reaction to the honey, and one burn remained stationary after a good initial response.
The usefulness of honey dressings as an alternative method of managing abdominal wound disruption was assessed in a prospective trial over 2 years compared retrospectively with patients of a similar age over the preceding 2 years (13). Fifteen patients whose wound disrupted after Caesarean section were treated with honey application and wound approximation by micropore tape instead of the conventional method of wound dressing with subsequent resuturing. (The comparative group, 19 patients, had had their dehisced wounds cleaned with hydrogen peroxide and Dakin solution and packed with saline-soaked gauze prior to resuturing under general anaesthesia.) It was noted that with honey dressings slough and necrotic were replaced by granulation and advancing epithelialisation within 2 days, and foul-smelling wounds were made odourless within 1 week. Excellent results were achieved in all the cases treated with honey, thus avoiding the need to resuture which would have required general anae sthesia. Eleven of the cases were completely healed within 7 days, all 15 within 2 weeks. The period of hospitalisation required was 2 - 7 days (mean 4.5), compared with 9 - 18 days (mean 11.5) for the comparative group. Two of the comparative group had their wounds become reinfected, and one developed hepatocellular jaundice from the anaesthetic.
A retrospective study of 156 burn patients treated in a hospital over a period of 5 years (1988-92) found that the 13 cases treated with honey had a similar outcome to those treated with silver sulfadiazine (11).
A prospective randomised controlled trial was carried out to compare honey-impregnated gauze with OpSite® as a cover for fresh partial thickness burns in two groups of 46 patients. Wounds dressed with honey-impregnated gauze showed significantly faster healing compared with those dressed with OpSite® (means 10.8 versus 15.3 days: p < 0.001). Less than half as many of the cases became infected in the wounds dressed with honey-impregnated gauze compared with those dressed with OpSite® (p < 0.001).
Another prospective randomised clinical study was carried out to compare honey-impregnated gauze with amniotic membrane dressing for partial thickness burns (16). Forty patients were treated with honey-impregnated gauze and 24 were treated with amniotic membrane. The burns treated with honey healed earlier compared with those treated with amniotic membrane (mean 9.4 versus 17.5 days: p < 0.001). Residual scars were noted in 8% of patients treated with honey-impregnated gauze and in 16.6% of cases treated with amniotic membrane (p < 0.001).
Honey was compared with silver sulfadiazine-impregnated gauze for efficacy as a dressing for superficial burn injury in a prospective randomised controlled trial that was carried out with a total of 104 patients (14). In the 52 patients treated with honey, 91% of the wounds were rendered sterile within 7 days. In the 52 patients treated with silver sulfadiazine, 7% showed control of infection within 7 days. Healthy granulation tissue was observed earlier in patients treated with honey (means 7.4 versus 13.4 days). The time taken for healing was significantly shorter with the honey-treated group (p<0.001): of the wounds treated with honey 87% healed within 15 days compared with 10% of those treated with silver sulfadiazine. Better relief of pain, less exudation, less irritation of the wound, and a lower incidence of hypertrophic scar and post-burn contracture were noted with the honey treatment. The honey treatment also gave acceleration of epithelialisation at 6 - 9 days, a chemi cal debridement effect and removal of offensive smell.
In another prospective randomised controlled trial comparing honey with silver sulfadiazine-impregnated gauze on comparable fresh partial thickness burns (18), histological examination of biopsy samples from the wound margin as well as clinical observations of wound healing were made to assess relative effects on wound healing in two groups of 25 patients. The time taken for healing was significantly shorter with the honey-treated group (p<0.001). Of the wounds treated with honey, 84% showed satisfactory epithelialisation by the 7th day, 100% by the 21st day. In wounds treated with silver sulfadiazine, epithelialisation occurred by the 7th day in 72% of the patients and in 84% of patients by 21 days. Histological evidence of reparative activity was seen in 80% of wounds treated with the honey dressing by the 7th day, with minimal inflammation. Of the wounds treated with silver sulfadiazine 52% showed reparative activity, with inflammatory changes, by the 7th day. Reparative activ ity reached 100% by 21 days with the honey dressing and 84% with silver sulfadiazine. In honey-dressed wounds early subsidence of acute inflammatory changes, better control of infection and quicker wound healing were observed, while in the wounds treated with silver sulfadiazine sustained inflammatory reaction was noted even on epithelialisation. No skin grafting was required for the wounds treated with honey, but four of the wounds treated with silver sulfadiazine converted to deep and required skin grafts.
Honey was also compared with boiled potato peel as a cover for fresh partial-thickness burns in another prospective randomised controlled trial (17). Of the 40 patients treated with honey who had had positive swab cultures at the time of admission, 90% had their wounds rendered sterile within 7 days. All of the 42 patients treated with boiled potato peel dressings who had had positive swab cultures at the time of admission had persistent infection after 7 days. Of the wounds treated with honey, 100% healed within 15 days compared with 50% of the wounds treated with boiled potato peel dressings. The mean times to heal, 10.4 days with honey versus 16.2 days with boiled potato peel, were significantly different (p<0.001).
Allergy to honey is rare (56), but there could be an allergic reaction to either the pollen or the bee proteins in honey (57, 58). In reports of clinical studies where honey was applied to open wounds of a total of 125 patients it was stated that there were no allergic or adverse reactions (7, 13, 16, 23). However, an occurrence of a minor haemorrhage soon after application of honey has been mentioned in reference to an unrecorded case (10). Reference has been made to dehydration of tissues if too much honey is applied to a wound, but it has been stated that the hydration of the tissues is easily restored by saline packs (19, 22). Because honey contains up to 40% glucose there is a theoretical risk of it adversely elevating the blood glucose level of diabetics when applied topically on a large open wound.
Honey sometimes contains spores of clostridia, which poses a small risk of wound botulism. However, in none of the many reports published on the clinical usage of honey on open wounds was the honey that was used sterilised, yet there are no reports of any type of infection resulting from the application of honey to wounds. If spores germinated, any vegetative cells of clostridia, being obligate anaerobes, would be unlikely to survive in the presence of the hydrogen peroxide that is generated in diluted honey. But the use of honey as a wound dressing has been argued against, however, on the grounds that the risk of it possibly causing wound botulism is unacceptable (59). This objection can be overcome by the use of honey that has been treated by gamma-irradiation, which kills clostridial spores in honey (60, 61) without loss of any of the antibacterial activity (60).
The problem of attraction of flies and ants to honey dressings (62, 63), not commonly noted, can be overcome by using effective secondary dressings so that the honey is prevented from leaking out or being exposed to insects.
Honey gives a fast rate of tissue regeneration and suppression of inflammation, oedema, exudation and malodour in wounds, as evidenced in clinical observations and the results of animal studies and clinical trials. The antibacterial properties clearing infection could alone account for these effects by preventing the production of the products of bacterial metabolism which are responsible for the contrary conditions. But honey has a direct trophic and anti-inflammatory effect on wound tissues, as evidenced by the results of animal studies in which there was no bacterial infection involved, particularly in those where the honey was administered systemically.
Honey can be expected to have a direct nutrient effect on regenerating tissue because it contains a wide range of amino acids, vitamins and trace elements in addition to large quantities of readily assimilable sugars (65). (The vitamin C content of honey, which is typically more than three times higher than that in serum, and may be many times higher, could be of particular importance as because of the essential role of this vitamin in collagen synthesis.) In addition, the high osmolarity of honey causes an outflow of lymph which serves to provide nutrition for regenerating tissue which otherwise can only grow around points of angiogenesis (seen as granulation): healing is delayed if the circulation to an area is poor, or if a patient is poorly nourished. Also it has been suggested that the decreased turgor resulting from the application of honey may increase oxygenation of tissues (7).
This osmotically induced outflow will also assist in lifting dirt and debris from the bed of a wound. It also ensures that the dressing will not stick to the wound, as what ends up as the material in contact with the wound tissue is a fluid solution of honey, which can be easily lifted off and any residue rinsed away. Thus there is no pain on changing dressings, and no tearing away of newly formed tissue. The cleansing effect of the osmotic flow and the chemical or enzymic debriding effect of honey makes surgical debridement unnecessary, thus saving the patient pain or the risks associated with anaesthesia. It has also been noted that by reducing in surface area oedematous and soggy wounds, or making them more clearly defined, it enables a definite decision on limb amputations to be made, which would be of particular advantage in the case of diabetic and malignant ulcers (7).
There is also an economical advantage to using honey as a wound dressing. This is seen both in the direct cost savings when compared with conventional treatments, and in the savings in ongoing costs when consideration is given to the more rapid healing rates that are achieved. Cost comparisons that have been made are: 480 F for treatment with Debrisan compared with 7.5 F for treatment with honey (38); $70 for treatment with antibiotics compared with $2 for treatment with honey (23); $40 for treatment with Duoderm compared with $8 for treatment with honey (8). Other observations on cost savings have been: use of antibiotics ceased (28), length of hospitalisation reduced (23, 28, 38) (by at least half (13, 19)). In addition there are the savings in the costs of surgery where debridement and skin grafting become unnecessary when honey is used.
Honey is also an ideal first-aid dressing material, especially for patients in remote locations when there could be time for infection to have set in before medical treatment is obtained: it is readily available and simple to use. It would be particularly suitable for first-aid treatment for burns, where emergency dousing or cooling frequently involves the use of contaminated water which then leads to heavy infection of the traumatised tissue. As well as providing an immediate anti-inflammatory treatment the honey would provide an antibacterial action and a barrier to further infection of the wound.
2. Beck BF, Smedley D. Honey and Your Health. (Second ed.) New York: McBride, 1944.
3. Forrest RD. Early history of wound treatment. J R Soc Med 1982; 75:198-205.
4. Drouet N. L'utilisation du sucre et du miel dans le traitement des plaies infectées. Presse Méd 1983; 12(38):2355-6.
5. Harris S. Honey for the treatment of superficial wounds: a case report and review. Primary Intention 1994; 2(4):18-23.
6. Greenwood D. Sixty years on: antimicrobial drug resistance comes of age. Lancet 1995; 346(supplement 1):s1.
7. Efem SEE. Clinical observations on the wound healing properties of honey. Br J Surg 1988; 75:679-681.
8. Wood B, Rademaker M, Molan PC. Manuka honey, a low cost leg ulcer dressing. N Z Med J 1997; 110:107.
9. Ndayisaba G, Bazira L, Habonimana E, Muteganya D. Clinical and bacteriological results in wounds treated with honey. J Orthop Surg 1993; 7(2):202-204.
10. Hutton DJ. Treatment of pressure sores. Nurs Times 1966; 62(46):1533-1534.
11. Adesunkanmi K, Oyelami OA. The pattern and outcome of burn injuries at Wesley Guild Hospital, Ilesha, Nigeria: a review of 156 cases. J Trop Med Hyg 1994; 97(2):108-112.
12. Gupta SK, Singh H, Varshney AC, Prakash P. Therapeutic efficacy of honey in infected wounds in buffaloes. Indian J Anim Sci 1992; 62(6):521-523.
13. Phuapradit W, Saropala N. Topical application of honey in treatment of abdominal wound disruption. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 32(4):381-384.
14. Subrahmanyam M. Topical application of honey in treatment of burns. Br J Surg 1991; 78(4):497-498.
15. Subrahmanyam M. Honey impregnated gauze versus polyurethane film (OpSite®) in the treatment of burns – a prospective randomised study. Br J Plast Surg 1993; 46(4):322-323.
16. Subrahmanyam M. Honey-impregnated gauze versus amniotic membrane in the treatment of burns. Burns 1994; 20(4):331-333.
17. Subrahmanyam M. Honey dressing versus boiled potato peel in the treatment of burns: a prospective randomized study. Burns 1996; 22(6):491-493.
18. Subrahmanyam M. A prospective randomised clinical and histological study of superficial burn wound healing with honey and silver sulfadiazine. Burns 1998; 24(2):157-161.
19. Cavanagh D, Beazley J, Ostapowicz F. Radical operation for carcinoma of the vulva. A new approach to wound healing. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1970; 77(11):1037-1040.
20. Efem SEE. Recent advances in the management of Fournier's gangrene: Preliminary observations. Surgery 1993; 113(2):200-204.
21. Bulman MW. Honey as a surgical dressing. Middlesex Hosp J 1955; 55:188-189.
22. Bose B. Honey or sugar in treatment of infected wounds? Lancet 1982; i(April 24):963.
23. Farouk A, Hassan T, Kashif H, Khalid SA, Mutawali I, Wadi M. Studies on Sudanese bee honey: laboratory and clinical evaluation. Int J Crude Drug Res 1988; 26(3):161-168.
24. 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; 145:374-376.
25. Postmes T, van den Bogaard AE, Hazen M. Honey for wounds, ulcers, and skin graft preservation. Lancet 1993; 341(8847):756-757.
26. Postmes TJ, Bosch MMC, Dutrieux R, van Baare J, Hoekstra MJ. Speeding up the healing of burns with honey. An experimental study with histological assessment of wound biopsies. In: Mizrahi A, Lensky Y, eds. Bee Products: Properties, Applications and Apitherapy. New York: Plenum Press, 1997:27-37.
27. Ankra-Badu GA. Sickle cell leg ulcers in Ghana. East Afr Med J 1992; 69(7):366-369.
28. Armon PJ. The use of honey in the treatment of infected wounds. Trop Doct 1980; 10:91.
29. Dumronglert E. A follow-up study of chronic wound healing dressing with pure natural honey. J Nat Res Counc Thail 1983; 15(2):39-66.
30. Molan PC. The antibacterial activity of honey. 1. The nature of the antibacterial activity. Bee World 1992; 73(1):5-28.
31. Molan PC. The antibacterial activity of honey. 2. Variation in the potency of the antibacterial activity. Bee World 1992; 73(2):59-76.
32. Willix DJ, Molan PC, Harfoot CJ. A comparison of the sensitivity of wound-infecting species of bacteria to the antibacterial activity of manuka honey and other honey. J Appl Bacteriol 1992; 73:388-394.
33. Molan P, Brett M. Honey has potential as a dressing for wounds infected with MRSA. The Second Australian Wound Management Association Conference. Brisbane, Australia, 1998.
34. Braniki FJ. Surgery in Western Kenya. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1981; 63:348-352.
35. Wadi M, Al-Amin H, Farouq A, Kashef H, Khaled SA. Sudanese bee honey in the treatment of suppurating wounds. Arab Medico 1987; 3:16-18.
36. Hejase MJ, E. SJ, Bihrle R, Coogan CL. Genital Fournier's gangrene: experience with 38 patients. Urology 1996; 47(5):734-739.
37. Dany-Mazeau MPG. Honig auf die Wunde. Krankenpflege 1992; 46(1):6-10.
38. Descottes B. De la ruche a l'hospital ou l'utilisation du miel dans l'unité de soins. L'abeille de France et l'apiculture 1990; (754):459-460.
39. Zaiß. Der Honig in äußerlicher Anwendung. Muench Med Wochenschr 1934; Nr. 49:1891-1893.
40. Blomfield R. Honey for decubitus ulcers. J Am Med Assoc 1973; 224(6):905.
41. Yang KL. The use of honey in the treatment of chilblains, non-specific ulcers, and small wounds. Chin Med J 1944; 62:55-60.
42. Seymour FI, West KS. Honey - its role in medicine. Med Times 1951; 79:104-107.
43. White JW, Subers MH. Studies on honey Inhibine. 3. Effect of heat. J Apic Res 1964; 3(1):45-50.
44. Green AE. Wound healing properties of honey. Br J Surg 1988; 75(12):1278.
45. McInerney RJF. Honey - a remedy rediscovered. J R Soc Med 1990; 83:127.
46. Weber H. Honig zur Behandlung vereiterter Wunden. Ther Ggw 1937; 78:547.
47. Burlando F. Sull'azione terapeutica del miele nelle ustioni. Minerva Dermatol 1978; 113:699-706.
48. Hamdy MH, El-Banby MA, Khakifa KI, Gad EM, Hassanein EM. The antimicrobial effect of honey in the management of septic wounds. Fourth International Conference on Apiculture in Tropical Climates. Cairo: International Bee Research Association, London, 1989:61-67.
49. Keast-Butler J. Honey for necrotic malignant breast ulcers. Lancet 1980; ii(October 11):809.
50. Kumar A, Sharma VK, Singh HP, Prakash P, Singh SP. Efficacy of some indigenous drugs in tissue repair in buffaloes. Indian Vet J 1993; 70(1):42-44.
51. Kandil A, El-Banby M, Abdel-Wahed K, Abou-Sehly G, Ezzat N. Healing effect of true floral and false nonfloral honey on medical wounds. J Drug Res (Cairo) 1987; 17(1-2):71-75.
52. El-Banby M, Kandil A, Abou-Sehly G, El-Sherif ME, Abdel-Wahed K. Healing effect of floral honey and honey from sugar-fed bees on surgical wounds (animal model). Fourth International Conference on Apiculture in Tropical Climates. Cairo: International Bee Research Association, London, 1989:46-49.
53. Suguna L, Chandrakasan G, Thomas Joseph K. Influence of honey on collagen metabolism during wound healing in rats. J Clin Biochem Nutr 1992; 13:7-12.
54. Suguna L, Chandrakasan G, Ramamoorthy U, Thomas Joseph K. Influence of honey on biochemical and biophysical parameters of wounds in rats. J Clin Biochem Nutr 1993; 14:91-99.
55. Emarah MH. A clinical study of the topical use of bee honey in the treatment of some occular diseases. Bull Islamic Med 1982; 2(5):422-5.
56. Kiistala R, Hannuksela M, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Niinimäki A, Haahtela T. Honey allergy is rare in patients sensitive to pollens. Allergy 1995; 50:844-847.
57. Helbling A, Peter C, Berchtold E, Bogdanov S, Müller U. Allergy to honey: relation to pollen and honey bee allergy. Allergy 1992; 47(1):41-49.
58. Bauer L, Kohlich A, Hirschwehr R, et al. Food allergy to honey: Pollen or bee products? Characterisation of allergenic proteins in honey by means of immunoblotting. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 97(1):65-73.
59. Mossel DAA. Honey for necrotic breast ulcers. Lancet 1980; ii(November 15):1091.
60. Molan PC, Allen KL. The effect of gamma-irradiation on the antibacterial activity of honey. J Pharm Pharmacol 1996; 48:1206-1209.
61. Postmes T, van den Bogaard AE, Hazen M. The sterilization of honey with cobalt 60 gamma radiation: a study of honey spiked with Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus subtilis. Experentia (Basel) 1995; 51:986-989.
62. Mutalik S. Comment: The use of honey and sugar for the treatment of ulcers in leprosy. Lepr Rev 1991; 62(2):228.
63. Tovey FI. Honey and healing. J R Soc Med 1991; 84(7):447.
64. Ryan GB, Majno G. Inflammation. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Upjohn, 1977.
65. White JW. Composition of honey. In: Crane E, ed. Honey: a Comprehensive Survey. London: Heinemann, 1975:157-206.
66. Leveen HH, Falk G, Borek B, et al. Chemical acidification of wounds. An adjuvant to healing and the unfavourable action of alkalinity and ammonia. Ann Surg 1973; 178(6):745-753.
67. Kaufman T, Eichenlaub EH, Angel MF, Levin M, Futrell JW. Topical acidification promotes healing of experimental deep partial thickness skin burns: a randomised double-blind preliminary study. Burns 1985; 12:84-90.
68. Nychas GJ, Dillon VM, Board RG. Glucose, the key substrate in the microbiological changes in meat and certain meat products. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 1988; 10:203-231.
Home NZ Bkpg Bee Diseases Organisation Information Contacts
Email to Nick Wallingford, webmaster of the site...