Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Manuka honey UMF20 vs UMF5 for horse leg wound healing
By Tsang, A S et al.·Published in Australian veterinary journal·2017·University Veterinary Teaching Hospital Camden, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of the effects of topical application of UMF20 and UMF5 manuka honey with a generic multifloral honey on wound healing variables in an uncontaminated surgical equine distal limb wound model.
- Species:
- horse
Plain-English summary
A group of eight Standardbred horses with surgical wounds on their hind legs were treated with different types of honey to see which helped them heal faster. The horses received either UMF20 manuka honey, UMF5 manuka honey, a generic multifloral honey, or saline as a control. While all treatments showed similar results, the wounds treated with UMF20 manuka honey healed faster than those treated with the generic honey and saline. Overall, UMF20 honey was found to be the most effective in reducing healing time, although the difference was not very large.
People also search for: horse wound healing honey treatment · manuka honey for horse wounds · equine wound care products
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of application of manuka honey with unique manuka factor (UMF) 5 or 20 with a generic multifloral honey on equine wound healing variables. METHODS: Two full-thickness skin wounds (2.5 × 2.5 cm) were created on the metatarsus of both hindlimbs of eight Standardbred horses. The wounds on each horse were assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: UMF20 (UMF20) and UMF5 (UMF5) manuka honey; generic multifloral honey (GH); and a saline control. Bandages were changed daily for 12 days, after which treatment was stopped and the bandages were removed. Wound area was measured on day 1, then weekly until day 42. Overall wound healing rate (cm/day) and time to complete healing were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in wound area for any of the treatments on any measurement day except for day 21, where the mean wound area for wounds treated with UMF20 was smaller than the mean wound area for the UMF5-treated wounds (P = 0.031). There was no difference in mean (± SE) overall healing rate (cm/day) among the treatment groups. There were differences in mean (± SE) days to complete healing. Wounds treated with UMF20 healed faster than wounds treated with GH (P = 0.02) and control wounds (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of wounds with UMF20 reduced overall wound healing time compared with wounds treated with GH and control wounds. However, using this model the difference in the overall time to complete healing was small.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28714567/