Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water vs. common topical antiseptics in the healing of full‑thickness burn: Preclinical trial in a mouse model
Ivan Delgado-Enciso,Nomely S Aurelien-Cabezas,Carmen Meza-Robles,Mireya Walle-Guillen,Gustavo A Hernandez-Fuentes,Ariana Cabrera-Licona,Alejandra E Hernandez-Rangel,Marina Delgado-Machuca,Alejandrina Rodriguez-Hernandez,Oscar F Beas-Guzman,Citlaly B Cardenas-Aguilar,Iram P Rodriguez-Sanchez,Margarita L Martinez-Fierro,Daniel Chaviano-Conesa,Brenda A Paz-Michel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2024.1877
2024-10-10
Abstract:Burn injuries impose challenges such as infection risk, pain management, fluid loss, electrolyte imbalance and psychological and emotional impact, on healthcare professionals, requiring effective treatments to enhance wound healing. The present study evaluated the efficacy superoxidized electrolyzed solution (SES), with low (SES-low) or high (SES-high) concentrations of active species, alone or in combination with a formulation in gel (G), in comparison with commonly prescribed treatments for burn injury, including nitrofurazone (NF) and silver sulfadiazine (S); normal saline was used as placebo (PI). A scald burn model was established in BALB/c mice. Measurements of the burned area and histological parameters such as inflammatory infiltration state, epithelial regeneration and collagen fibers were evaluated on days 3, 6, 9, 18 and 32 to assess healing score and status. All treatments achieved wound closure at day 32; histopathological parameters indicated that SES-low and SES-low + G performed better than the Pl and S groups (P<0.05). All treatments showed a lower count of inflammatory cells compared with S (P<0.05); for collagen deposition and orientation, SES-low + G showed a more uniform horizontal orientation compared with Pl, SES-high + G, NF and S groups (P<0.05). SES-Low was the most effective substance to induce favorable and organized healing, while S was the worst, inducing disorganized closure of the wound due to a pro-inflammatory effect.