Evaluation of LHP® (1% hydrogen peroxide) cream versus petrolatum and untreated controls in open wounds in healthy horses: a randomized, blinded control study

Abstract

BackgroundTreatment and protection of wounds in horses can be challenging; protecting bandages may be difficult to apply on the proximal extremities and the body. Unprotected wounds carry an increased risk of bacterial contamination and subsequent infection which can lead to delayed wound healing. Topical treatment with antimicrobials is one possibility to prevent bacterial colonization or infection, but the frequent use of antimicrobials ultimately leads to development of bacterial resistance which is an increasing concern in both human and veterinary medicine.MethodsStandardized wounds were created in 10 Standardbred mares. Three wounds were made in each horse. Two wounds were randomly treated with LHP® or petrolatum and the third wound served as untreated control. All wounds were assessed daily until complete epithelization. Protocol data were recorded on day 2, 6, 11, 16, 21 and 28. Data included clinical scores for inflammation and healing, photoplanimetry for calculating wound areas and swab cytology to assess bacterial colonization and inflammation. Bacterial cultures were obtained on day 2, 6 and 16.ResultsMean time to complete healing for LHP® treated wounds was 32 days (95%CI = 26.9-37.7). Mean time to complete healing for petrolatum and untreated control wounds were 41.6 days (95%CI = 36.2-47.0) and 44.0 days (95%CI = 38.6-49.4) respectively. Wound healing occurred significantly faster in LHP® wounds compared to both petrolatum (p = 0.0004) and untreated controls (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in time for healing between petrolatum and untreated controls. Total scores for bacteria and neutrophils were significantly (p < 0.0001) lower for LHP® treated wounds compared to petrolatum from day 16 and onwards. Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus zooepidemicus were only found in cultures from petrolatum treated wounds and untreated controls.ConclusionsTreatment with LHP® reduced bacterial colonization and was associated with earlier complete wound healing. LHP® cream appears to be safe and effective for topical wound treatment or wound protection.

A Preliminary Study of Silver Sodium Zirconium Phosphate Polyurethane Foam Wound Dressing on Wounds of the Distal Aspect of the Forelimb in Horses

“…Berry and Sullins showed that there was no significant difference in healing variables or mean days of healing among the groups when comparing silver sulfadiazine based topical therapies with and without a bandage to a povidone‐iodine ointment therapy and control. Experimental wounds treated with topical hydrogen peroxide cream healed significantly faster than control wounds, whereas a study evaluating manuka honey found that experimentally contaminated wounds healed faster than control wounds . There are disadvantages to unrestricted use of antimicrobial wound treatments.…”

Fighting Off Wound Pathogens in Horses with Honeybee Lactic Acid Bacteria

“…This is possibly due to the slightly higher water content in heather honey than in other honey types, which allows for greater activity of the LAB substances and their viability. Another study has also shown the effectiveness of a hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) topical ointment in the treatment of equine wounds [52] which could explains honeys action. H 2 O 2 is produced in large quantities by the LAB symbionts [33] and by the honeybee itself that is inactivated during honey ripening, but then reactivated when diluted by the wound exudate leading to its slow release [3].…”

Comparison of a new laser beam wound camera and a digital photoplanimetry-based method for wound measurement in horses

“…Moreover, contact with the wound increases the risk of contamination and so a fast non-contact technique is preferable. The digital photoplanimetry (DP) technique, commonly used in equine studies to evaluate wound dimensions (Berry and Sullins, 2003;Monteiro et al, 2009;Tóth et al, 2011;Azari et al, 2012;Bischofberger et al, 2013), meets the noncontact requirement, but cannot measure either the depth or volume of a wound. Moreover, the accuracy or precision of the technique is unknown, reflecting a dearth of published information on wound measurement techniques in veterinary medicine.…”

“…DP was chosen as the first technique, since it is frequently used in equine studies to assess wound dimensions (Berry and Sullins, 2003;Monteiro et al, 2009;Tóth et al, 2011;Azari et al, 2012;Bischofberger et al, 2013). The technique was supplemented with a manual measurement of the maximum wound depth, thus allowing the wound volume to be calculated using the validated Kundin formula (Kundin, 1989;Langemo et al, 1998Langemo et al, , 2001Langemo et al, , 2001.…”