Age-old therapy gets new approval

A Parallel Randomized Clinical Trial for Comparison of Two Methods of Maggot Therapy, Free-Range Larvae and Larval-bag, in Diabetic Ulcer (Wagner 2)

In the present study, the efficiency of two formulations of maggot therapy: free-range larvae on the wounds and larvae in a special bag (larval-bag), was compared for healing diabetic ulcers with Wagner 2 diabetic ulcer. This study was conducted as a parallel randomized clinical trial. Out of 281 patients with Wagner grade 2 diabetic ulcers referred to the wound clinic, 54 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to intervention groups. The disinfected larvae of Lucilia sericata were put on the wounds with 2 methods, free-range larvae and larval-bag. Follow up was done at every 48 h interval until the full appearance of granulated tissues. The main measures were wound bed preparation, removing of necrotic tissues, appearing of granulated tissues, and removing of bacterial infections in the wounds. Statistical analysis based on the Kaplan-Meier curve and the Wilcoxon (Breslow) test showed a significant reduction in wound healing time by using free-range larvae in comparison with larval-bag (P = .03). The median time to debridement was 4 days in the free-range larval group (95% confidence interval: 3-9 days) while it was 9 days in the larval-bag group (95% confidence interval: 5-16 days). Debridement rate (proportion of removed necrotic tissue surfaces) at any time in the free-ranged larvae group was 1.78 times that of the bagged larvae group (95% confidence interval 1.01-3.15, P = .036). There was no significant difference between free-range larval use and larval-bag in the acceptability of maggot therapy by patients (P = .48). It can be concluded that both of two formulations of the larval therapy (free-range larvae and larval-bag) could be recommended for cleaning out and bed preparation of diabetic ulcers. However, using free-range larvae is hardly recommended on the wounds which are eligible to use.

Pharmacological Properties of the Medical Maggot: A Novel Therapy Overview

In the last decade, maggot has been hailed as the miraculous “medicinal maggot” for its diverse properties, including antimicrobial, antibiofilm, anti-inflammatory, and wound healing activities. The fact that maggots show so many beneficial properties has increased the interest in these tiny larvae dramatically. Whilst there is relatively abundant clinical evidence to demonstrate the success of maggots as debridement agents, not so much emphasis has been placed on the basic science evidence, which was a combination of physical and biochemical actions. This review differs from those earlier works in that it is undertaken to provide an update of the latest scientific basis published on maggot, particularly active ingredients within maggot excretions/secretions (ES). Further investigations should focus on the isolation, identification, recombination, transgenosis, and mass production of the beneficial molecules within maggots.

Maggot debridement therapy for postsurgical wound infection in scoliosis: a case series in five patients

STUDY DESIGN

Case series of 5 patients who developed resistant wound infection after scoliosis surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To present maggot debridement therapy (MDT) as an effective alternative to the conventional treatment in postsurgical infection in scoliosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Numerous clinical reports have been published that describe outstanding effects of MDT, most notable on debridement, cleansing, disinfection, and healing of indolent wounds, many of which have previously failed to respond to conventional treatment. However, till date no reports have been found in the literature describing its use for the treatment of wound infection after scoliosis surgery, which has relatively longer and deeper wound.

METHODS

A total of 5 patients (2 females and 3 males) who developed wound infection after scoliosis correction surgery were included in this study. All were operated for neuromuscular scoliosis using posterior approach with pedicle screw fixation. All developed deep wound infection within 2 to 6 weeks of surgery, which was resistant to all kinds of conventional therapy. MDT applied in all using prepared commercially available maggot bags, and dressing was changed twice a week till wound shows signs of healing. After confirming negative culture, MDT was stopped and routine dressings or secondary closure was done. During the treatment, wound appearance, size, and development of healing were observed.

RESULTS

There were 1 patient with paralytic scoliosis and 4 with cerebral palsy. All wound healed completely within 5.2 ± 1.8 weeks of MDT or 8.8 ± 3.8 cycles of MDT. There was no recurrence on final follow-up of 21.6 ± 5.9 months. Wound size was also decreased from 24.2 ± 3.3 cm of pre-MDT to 11.8 ± 4.5 cm post-MDT showing 51.2% reduction in wound size. There was partial implant removal in 2 cases before MDT; however, no further implant extraction was needed in any case after MDT. Treatment was tolerated well by all patients without any obvious complications due to MDT.

CONCLUSION

We would propose to use MDT for the treatment of wound infection after scoliosis surgery as an effective alternative to conventional treatment. In this way, implant extraction could be avoided without losing any correction.

Assessment of neuropathic pain in the community

The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader with evidence basedclinical guidance regarding assessing neuropathic pain. Persistent pain is a huge burden on health-care provision and the prevalence of persistent neuropathic pain is likely to increase owing to the ageing population. The provision of appropriate relieving interventions depends on accurate assessment. This paper sets out to provide the reader with simple neuropathic assessment tools that can be applied to community care. This will allow the community nurse to identify patients who have neuropathic pain and will therefore enable appropriate management.

Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II): randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of larval therapy with a standard debridement technique (hydrogel) for sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more.

INTERVENTIONS

Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable).

RESULTS

Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692.