Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 28/03/2026
Abstract Views: 103
Views PDF: 70
DOI: 10.56535/jmpm.v51i3.1394
Issue
Vol. 51 No. 3 (2026): JOURNAL OF MILITARY PHARMACO-MEDICINE No.3 - 2026
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Le, Q. V., Nguyen, N. L., Le, D. M., Tran, D. H., & Ngo, T. H. (2026). EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 2.5% MAFENIDE ACETATE SOLUTION IN THE TREATMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL BURN INJURIES. Journal of Military Pharmaco-medicine, 51(3), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.56535/jmpm.v51i3.1394

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 2.5% MAFENIDE ACETATE SOLUTION IN THE TREATMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL BURN INJURIES

Quoc Vuong Le1,2, , Nhu Lam Nguyen1,2, Duc Man Le1,2, Dinh Hung Tran1,2, Tuan Hung Ngo1,2
1 Bộ môn Bỏng và Y học Thảm họa, Học viện Quân y
2 Bệnh viện Bỏng Quốc gia Lê Hữu Trác, Học viện Quân y

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of 2.5% mafenide acetate solution on experimental burn wounds. Methods: Interventional, prospective, longitudinal study of 61 healthy rabbits subjected to experimental burns, divided into 4 groups (group using 2.5% mafenide solution (MA2.5), group using 0.9% saline (NA), group using 5% mafenide solution (MA5) and group using 0.1% berberine solution (BE)). Results: The wound healing rate on day 28 in the group MA2.5 was significantly higher than that in the group NA and BE (p < 0.05). The wound healing time in the group MA2.5 was significantly lower than that in the group NA and BE (p < 0.01). There was no difference in wound healing rate and wound healing time between the groups MA2.5 and MA5 (p > 0.05). In the group MA2.5, the number of positive bacterial cultures was significantly lower than in the other groups on day 14 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The wound healing time in the group MA2.5 was significantly lower than that in the group NA and BE, equivalent to that in the group MA5.

Keywords

2.5% mafenide acetate solution, 5% mafenide acetate solution, Experimental burn wound

Article Details

References

1. Curreri P W, Bruck H M, Lindberg R, et al. Providencia stuartii sepsis: A new challenge in the treatment of thermal injury. Annals of Surgery. 1973; 177(2): 133.
2. Ibrahim A, Fagan S, Keaney T, et al. A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2014; 35(4):349-353.
3. Afshari A, Nguyen L, Kahn SA, et al. 2.5% mafenide acetate: A cost-effective alternative to the 5% solution for burn wounds. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2017; 38(1):e42-e47.
4. Nguyễn Thị Tỵ. Tác dụng điều trị tại chỗ vết thương bỏng thực nghiệm của tinh dầu trầm và bước đầu ứng dụng lâm sàng. Luận án tiến sĩ. Học viện Quân y. 1989.
5. Bộ Y tế. Kỹ thuật kháng sinh đồ khoanh giấy khuếch tán. Hướng dẫn thực hành kỹ thuật xét nghiệm Vi sinh Lâm sàng. Nhà xuất bản Y học, Hà Nội, 2017; 199.
6. Arslan K, Karahan O, Okus A, et al. Comparison of topical zinc oxide and silver sulfadiazine in burn wounds: An experimental study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2012; 18(5):376-383.
7. Masson‐Meyers DS, Andrade TA, Caetano GF, et al. Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment. International Journal Of Experimental Pathology. 2020; 101(1-2): 21-37.
8. Reagan‐Shaw S, Nihal M, Ahmad N. Dose translation from animal to human studies revisited. The FASEB Journal. 2008; 22(3):659-661.
9. Bagheri M, Zoric A, von Kohout M, et al. The antimicrobial efficacy of topically applied mafenide acetate, citric acid and wound irrigation solutions lavanox and prontosan against pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics. 2024; 13(1):42.
10. Wendling P. Mafenide Tied to Fungal Infections in Burn Patients. Skin & Allergy News. 2008; 39(7):48-48.