FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Acta Vet Scand / Evaluation of LHP® (1% hydrogen peroxide) cream versus petr...
Acta veterinaria Scandinavica2011; 53(1); 45; doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-53-45

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

Abstract: Treatment 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. Methods: Standardized 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. Results: Mean 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. Conclusions: Treatment 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.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2011-06-30 PubMed ID: 21718487PubMed Central: PMC3148982DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-53-45Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study comparatively evaluated the healing efficiency of LHP® (1% hydrogen peroxide) cream, petrolatum, and untreated control in equine wound care. The study found that wounds treated with LHP® healed more quickly and had less bacterial colonization when compared to both petrolatum treated and untreated wounds.

Research Methodology

  • The study involved 10 standardbred mares, in which three standardized wounds were created. Two of these wounds were treated with either LHP® or petrolatum, while the third wound was left untreated to serve as the control.
  • The condition of all wounds were assessed daily until complete healing or epithelization occurred.
  • Protocol data on inflammation, healing progress, wound areas, bacterial colonization, and inflammation levels were recorded periodically, on day 2, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 28.
  • Bacterial cultures were obtained and studied on day 2, 6, and 16 to determine the level of bacterial contaminants present in the wounds.

Findings of the Study

  • The mean healing time for the LHP® treated wounds was 32 days, which was shorter than the healing time for both petrolatum treated wounds (41.6 days) and untreated wounds (44 days).
  • The study concluded that healing occurred significantly faster in LHP® treated wounds compared to the petrolatum treated and untreated wounds.
  • The study also found no significant difference in healing time between petrolatum treated wounds and untreated ones.
  • Additionally, the total scores for bacterial presence and neutrophils (a type of white blood cell) were considerably lower in LHP® treated wounds from day 16 onwards.
  • The pathogenic bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus zooepidemicus, were found only in the petrolatum treated and untreated wounds, implying better antibacterial performance of LHP®.

Conclusion of the Study

  • The study possessed significant implications for veterinary medicine, showing that treatment with LHP® cream led to reduced bacterial colonization and quicker wound healing.
  • Overall, the sterilization efficiency and wound healing promotion capability of LHP® cream make it appear to be a reliable candidate for topical wound treatment or protection in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Tóth T, Broström H, Båverud V, Emanuelson U, Bagge E, Karlsson T, Bergvall K. (2011). Evaluation of LHP® (1% hydrogen peroxide) cream versus petrolatum and untreated controls in open wounds in healthy horses: a randomized, blinded control study. Acta Vet Scand, 53(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-53-45

Publication

Acta veterinaria Scandinavica
ISSN: 1751-0147
NlmUniqueID: 0370400
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 53
Issue: 1
Pages: 45

Researcher Affiliations

Tóth, Tamás
  • University Animal Hospital Equine Clinic, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Box 7040, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. tamas.toth@uds.slu.se
Broström, Hans
    Båverud, Viveca
      Emanuelson, Ulf
        Bagge, Elisabeth
          Karlsson, Tommy
            Bergvall, Kerstin

              MeSH Terms

              • Administration, Cutaneous
              • Animals
              • Anti-Infective Agents, Local / administration & dosage
              • Anti-Infective Agents, Local / therapeutic use
              • Bacteria / classification
              • Bacteria / isolation & purification
              • Emollients / administration & dosage
              • Emollients / therapeutic use
              • Epithelium / drug effects
              • Epithelium / microbiology
              • Epithelium / pathology
              • Female
              • Horses / injuries
              • Hydrogen Peroxide / administration & dosage
              • Hydrogen Peroxide / therapeutic use
              • Inflammation / drug therapy
              • Inflammation / veterinary
              • Neck Injuries / drug therapy
              • Neck Injuries / microbiology
              • Neck Injuries / pathology
              • Neck Injuries / veterinary
              • Petrolatum / administration & dosage
              • Petrolatum / therapeutic use
              • Random Allocation
              • Wound Healing / drug effects

              References

              This article includes 47 references
              1. Amalsadvala T, Swaim SF. Management of hard-to-heal wounds. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2006;36:693–711.
                doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2006.02.002pubmed: 16787784google scholar: lookup
              2. Smack DP, Harrington AC, Dunn C, Howard RS, Szkutnik AJ, Krivda SJ, Caldwell JB, James WD. Infection and allergy incidence in ambulatory surgery patients using white petrolatum vs bacitracin ointment. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996;276:972–977.
                doi: 10.1001/jama.276.12.972pubmed: 8805732google scholar: lookup
              3. Eady EA, Cove JH. Topical antibiotic therapy: current status and future prospects. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1990;16:423–433.
                pubmed: 2097147
              4. Teuber M. Veterinary use and antibiotic resistance. Curr Opin Microbiol 2001;4:493–499.
                doi: 10.1016/S1369-5274(00)00241-1pubmed: 11587923google scholar: lookup
              5. Filius PM, Gyssens IC. Impact of increasing antimicrobial resistance on wound management. Am J Clin Dermatol 2002;3:1–7.
                doi: 10.2165/00128071-200203010-00001pubmed: 11817964google scholar: lookup
              6. Anderson ME, Lefebvre SL, Weese JS. Evaluation of prevalence and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in veterinary personnel attending an international equine veterinary conference. Vet Microbiol 2008;129:410–417.
                doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.11.031pubmed: 18187274google scholar: lookup
              7. Weese JS, Rousseau J, Willey BM, Archambault M, McGeer A, Low DE. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses at a veterinary teaching hospital: frequency, characterization, and association with clinical disease. J Vet Intern Med 2006;20:182–186.
                pubmed: 16496939
              8. Weese JS, Caldwell F, Willey BM, Kreiswirth BN, McGeer A, Rousseau J, Low DE. An outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections resulting from horse to human transmission in a veterinary hospital. Vet Microbiol 2006;114:160–164.
                doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.11.054pubmed: 16384660google scholar: lookup
              9. Hanselman BA, Kruth SA, Rousseau J, Low DE, Willey BM, McGeer A, Weese JS. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in veterinary personnel. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:1933–1938.
                pmc: PMC3291342pubmed: 17326947
              10. Weese JS, Lefebvre SL. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in horses admitted to a veterinary teaching hospital. Can Vet J 2007;48:921–926.
                pmc: PMC1950112pubmed: 17966332
              11. Wasserbauer S, Perez-Meza D, Chao R. Hydrogen peroxide and wound healing: a theoretical and practical review for hair transplant surgeons. Dermatol Surg 2008;34:745–750.
                doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34141.xpubmed: 18318724google scholar: lookup
              12. Farstvedt E, Stashak TS. Equine Wound Management. 2. Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. Topical Wound Treatments and Wound Care Products; pp. 140–143.
              13. Larsson K. Significance of Crystalline Hydrocarbon Chains in Aqueous Dispersions and Emulsions of Lipids. Chem Phys Lipids 1975;14:233–235.
                doi: 10.1016/0009-3084(75)90004-3google scholar: lookup
              14. Lindahl A. Embedding of dithranol in lipid crystals. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 1992;172:13–16.
                pubmed: 1374990
              15. Christensen OB, Anehus S. Hydrogen peroxide cream: an alternative to topical antibiotics in the treatment of impetigo contagiosa. Acta Derm Venereol 1994;74:460–462.
                pubmed: 7701881
              16. Capizzi R, Landi F, Milani M, Amerio P. Skin tolerability and efficacy of combination therapy with hydrogen peroxide stabilized cream and adapalene gel in comparison with benzoyl peroxide cream and adapalene gel in common acne. A randomized, investigator-masked, controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2004;151:481–484.
                doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.06067.xpubmed: 15327558google scholar: lookup
              17. Milani M, Bigardi A, Zavattarelli M. Efficacy and safety of stabilised hydrogen peroxide cream (Crystacide) in mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: a randomised, controlled trial versus benzoyl peroxide gel. Curr Med Res Opin 2003;19:135–138.
                doi: 10.1185/030079902125001523pubmed: 12740158google scholar: lookup
              18. Tur E, Bolton L, Constantine BE. Topical hydrogen peroxide treatment of ischemic ulcers in the guinea pig: blood recruitment in multiple skin sites. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;33:217–221.
                doi: 10.1016/0190-9622(95)90238-4pubmed: 7622648google scholar: lookup
              19. Campbell RM, Perlis CS, Fisher E, Gloster HM Jr. Gentamicin ointment versus petrolatum for management of auricular wounds. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:664–669.
                pubmed: 15996417
              20. Zampieri N, Zuin V, Burro R, Ottolenghi A, Camoglio FS. A prospective study in children: Pre- and post-surgery use of vitamin E in surgical incisions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:1474–1478.
                doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.08.018pubmed: 19766552google scholar: lookup
              21. Jackson BA, Shelton AJ. Pilot study evaluating topical onion extract as treatment for postsurgical scars. Dermatol Surg 1999;25:267–269.
                doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4725.1999.08240.xpubmed: 10417579google scholar: lookup
              22. Gabbiani G. The myofibroblast in wound healing and fibrocontractive diseases. J Pathol 2003;200:500–503.
                doi: 10.1002/path.1427pubmed: 12845617google scholar: lookup
              23. Swaim SF, Hinkle SH, Bradley DM. Wound contraction: Basic and clinical factors. Comp Cont Educ Pract 2001;23:20–+.
              24. Lineaweaver W, Howard R, Soucy D, McMorris S, Freeman J, Crain C, Robertson J, Rumley T. Topical antimicrobial toxicity. Arch Surg 1985;120:267–270.
                pubmed: 3970664
              25. Wilgus TA, Bergdall VK, Dipietro LA, Oberyszyn TM. Hydrogen peroxide disrupts scarless fetal wound repair. Wound Repair Regen 2005;13:513–519.
                doi: 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.00072.xpubmed: 16176460google scholar: lookup
              26. Chung LY, Schmidt RJ, Andrews AM, Turner TD. A study of hydrogen peroxide generation by, and antioxidant activity of, Granuflex (DuoDERM) Hydrocolloid Granules and some other hydrogel/hydrocolloid wound management materials. Br J Dermatol 1993;129:145–153.
                doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1993.tb03517.xpubmed: 7654573google scholar: lookup
              27. Park SK, Kim J, Seomun Y, Choi J, Kim DH, Han IO, Lee EH, Chung SK, Joo CK. Hydrogen peroxide is a novel inducer of connective tissue growth factor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;284:966–971.
                doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.5058pubmed: 11409888google scholar: lookup
              28. Murrell GA, Francis MJ, Bromley L. Modulation of fibroblast proliferation by oxygen free radicals. Biochem J 1990;265:659–665.
                pmc: PMC1133685pubmed: 2154966
              29. Cho M, Hunt TK, Hussain MZ. Hydrogen peroxide stimulates macrophage vascular endothelial growth factor release. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2001;280:H2357–2363.
                pubmed: 11299242
              30. Torrecillas G, Boyano-Adandez MD, Medina J, Parra T, Griera M, Lopez-Ongil S, Arilla E, Rodriguez-Puyol M, Rodriguez-Puyol D. The role of hydrogen peroxide in the contractile response to angiotensin II. Mol Pharmacol 2001;59:104–112.
                pubmed: 11125030
              31. Dart AJ, Cries L, Jeffcott LB, Hodgson DR, Rose RJ. Effects of 25% propylene glycol hydrogel (Solugel) on second intention wound healing in horses. Vet Surg 2002;31:309–313.
                doi: 10.1053/jvet.2002.33585pubmed: 12094343google scholar: lookup
              32. Bertone AL. Management of exuberant granulation tissue. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 1989;5:551–562.
                pubmed: 2691030
              33. Gruber RP, Vistnes L, Pardoe R. The effect of commonly used antiseptics on wound healing. Plast Reconstr Surg 1975;55:472–476.
                pubmed: 1090959
              34. Turner FJ. Hydrogen peroxide and other oxidant disinfactants. In: Disinfection, sterilization and prevention. Block SS, editor. Philadelphia: Lea & Febinger; 1983; pp. 240–250.
              35. Weiss SJ. Tissue destruction by neutrophils. N Engl J Med 1989;320:365–376.
                doi: 10.1056/NEJM198902093200606pubmed: 2536474google scholar: lookup
              36. Passo SA, Weiss SJ. Oxidative mechanisms utilized by human neutrophils to destroy Escherichia coli. Blood 1984;63:1361–1368.
                pubmed: 6326895
              37. Kinnunen T, Koskela M. Antibacterial and antifungal properties of propylene glycol, hexylene glycol, and 1,3-butylene glycol in vitro. Acta Derm Venereol 1991;71:148–150.
                pubmed: 1675525
              38. Wang LL, Johnson EA. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by fatty acids and monoglycerides. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;58:624–629.
                pmc: PMC195293pubmed: 1610184
              39. Wilmink JM, van Weeren PR, Stolk PW, Van Mil FN, Barneveld A. Differences in second-intention wound healing between horses and ponies: histological aspects. Equine Vet J 1999;31:61–67.
                doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03792.xpubmed: 9952331google scholar: lookup
              40. Jacobs KA, Leach DH, Fretz PB, Townsend HGG. Comparative Aspects of the Healing of Excisional Wounds on the Leg and Body of Horses. Vet Surg 1984;13:83–90.
              41. Wilmink JM, Stolk PW, van Weeren PR, Barneveld A. Differences in second-intention wound healing between horses and ponies: macroscopic aspects. Equine Vet J 1999;31:53–60.
                doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03791.xpubmed: 9952330google scholar: lookup
              42. Bertone AL, Sullins KE, Stashak TS, Norrdin RW. Effect of wound location and the use of topical collagen gel on exuberant granulation tissue formation and wound healing in the horse and pony. Am J Vet Res 1985;46:1438–1444.
                pubmed: 4026023
              43. Knighton DR, Silver IA, Hunt TK. Regulation of wound-healing angiogenesis-effect of oxygen gradients and inspired oxygen concentration. Surgery 1981;90:262–270.
                pubmed: 6166996
              44. Branski LK, Mittermayr R, Herndon DN, Norbury WB, Masters OE, Hofmann M, Traber DL, Redl H, Jeschke MG. A porcine model of full-thickness burn, excision and skin autografting. Burns 2008;34:1119–1127.
                doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.03.013pmc: PMC2637517pubmed: 18617332google scholar: lookup
              45. Petersen SL, Botes C, Olivier A, Guthrie AJ. The effect of low level laser therapy (LLLT) on wound healing in horses. Equine Vet J 1999;31:228–231.
                doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03177.xpubmed: 10402136google scholar: lookup
              46. Athanasiou A, Karkambounas S, Batistatou A, Lykoudis E, Katsaraki A, Kartsiouni T, Papalois A, Evangelou A. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on secondary skin wound healing: an experimental study. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28:362–368.
                doi: 10.1002/bem.20303pubmed: 17486634google scholar: lookup
              47. Berry DB, Sullins KE. Effects of topical application of antimicrobials and bandaging on healing and granulation tissue formation in wounds of the distal aspect of the limbs in horses. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:88–92.
                doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.88pubmed: 12518884google scholar: lookup

              Citations

              This article has been cited 7 times.
              1. Ribeiro G, Carvalho L, Borges J, Prazeres J. The Best Protocol to Treat Equine Skin Wounds by Second Intention Healing: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Animals (Basel) 2024 May 18;14(10).
                doi: 10.3390/ani14101500pubmed: 38791717google scholar: lookup
              2. Labens R, Raidal S, Borgen-Nielsen C, Pyecroft S, Pant SD, De Ridder T. Wound healing of experimental equine skin wounds and concurrent microbiota in wound dressings following topical propylene glycol gel treatment. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1294021.
                doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1294021pubmed: 38155761google scholar: lookup
              3. Torres A, Rego L, Martins MS, Ferreira MS, Cruz MT, Sousa E, Almeida IF. How to Promote Skin Repair? In-Depth Look at Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Strategies. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2023 Apr 11;16(4).
                doi: 10.3390/ph16040573pubmed: 37111330google scholar: lookup
              4. Lawless SP, Cohen ND, Lawhon SD, Chamoun-Emanuelli AM, Wu J, Rivera-Vélez A, Weeks BR, Whitfield-Cargile CM. Effect of gallium maltolate on a model of chronic, infected equine distal limb wounds. PLoS One 2020;15(6):e0235006.
                doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235006pubmed: 32559258google scholar: lookup
              5. Zhu G, Wang Q, Lu S, Niu Y. Hydrogen Peroxide: A Potential Wound Therapeutic Target?. Med Princ Pract 2017;26(4):301-308.
                doi: 10.1159/000475501pubmed: 28384636google scholar: lookup
              6. Olofsson TC, Butler É, Lindholm C, Nilson B, Michanek P, Vásquez A. Fighting Off Wound Pathogens in Horses with Honeybee Lactic Acid Bacteria. Curr Microbiol 2016 Oct;73(4):463-73.
                doi: 10.1007/s00284-016-1080-2pubmed: 27324340google scholar: lookup
              7. Goldsmith JR, Jobin C. Think small: zebrafish as a model system of human pathology. J Biomed Biotechnol 2012;2012:817341.
                doi: 10.1155/2012/817341pubmed: 22701308google scholar: lookup
              Subscribe to our newsletter
              Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.