Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 272, Issue 3, pp 537–542 | Cite as

Safety of transtympanic application of 4 % manuka honey in a chinchilla animal model

  • M. Aron
  • O. V. Akinpelu
  • K. Gasbarrino
  • S. J. Daniel
Otology

Abstract

The antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties of manuka honey (MH) are currently being explored in the treatment of chronic recalcitrant rhinosinusitis. Due to similarities between chronic rhinosinusitis and chronic otitis, manuka honey may find applications in the management of challenging cases of chronic otitis media implicating biofilms. The goal of this study was to investigate the safety of topical application of 4 % MH in the middle ear. Eleven adult female chinchillas had one of their ears randomly assigned to receive transtympanic 4 % MH, while the contralateral ear served as control. Auditory brainstem-evoked response (ABR) was performed before and after MH application. The facial nerve function and vestibular system were assessed clinically. The animals were euthanized one month following the last application, and the cochleae samples were processed for light and scanning electron microscopy. There was no statistically significant differences between ABR thresholds in both control and experimental ears before and after the application of MH. No morphological differences were seen in both groups of cochleae. The outer hair cell counts for both groups were comparable. Our results suggest that 4 % MH appears not toxic to the cells of the cochlea after 4 weeks of application. The long-term effects of prolonged contact on the structure and function of the cochlea however need further investigations.

Keywords

Manuka honey 4 % Ototoxicity Transtympanic ABR Cochlear histology light microscopy Scanning electron microscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Mario Mujica for providing helpful comments during the revision of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart PS, Costerton JW (2001) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 358(9276):135–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jenkins R, Burton N, Cooper R (2011) Manuka honey inhibits cell division in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 66(11):2536–2542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dustmann J (1979) Antibacterial effect of honey. Apiacta 14(1):7–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Subrahmanyam M (1998) A prospective randomised clinical and histological study of superficial burn wound healing with honey and silver sulfadiazine. Burns 24(2):157–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Werner A, Laccourreye O (2011) Honey in otorhinolaryngology: when why and how? Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 128(3):133–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jervis-Bardy J, Foreman A, Bray S, Lorwai T, Wormald P (2011) Methylglyoxal-infused honey mimics the anti-Staphylococcus aureus biofilm activity of manuka honey: potential implication in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 121:1104–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lusby PE, Coombes AL, Wilkinson JM (2005) Bactericidal activity of different honeys against pathogenic bacteria. Arch Med Res 36:464–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alandejani T, Marsan J, Ferris W, Slinger R, Chan F (2009) Effectiveness of honey on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141:114–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper RA, Molan PC, Harding KG (1999) Antibacterial activity of honey against strains of Staphylococcus aureus from infected wounds. J R Soc Med 92:283–285PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper RA, Jenkins L, Henriques AFM, Duggan RS, Burton NF (2010) Absence of bacterial resistance to medical-grade manuka honey. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29:1237–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alzahrani HA, Alsabehi R, Boukraâ L, Abdellah F, Bellik Y, Bakhotmah BA (2012) Antibacterial and antioxidant potency of floral honeys from different botanical and geographical origins. Molecules 17(9):10540–10549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pieper B (2009) Honey-based dressings and wound care: an option for care in the United States. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 36(1):60–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prince AA, Steiger JD, Khalid AN et al (2008) Prevalence of biofilm-forming bacteria in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol 22(3):239–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lampikoski H, Aarnisalo AA, Jero J, Kinnari TJ (2012) Mastoid biofilm in chronic otitis media. Otol Neurotol 33(5):785–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aron M, Victoria Akinpelu O, Dorion D, Daniel S (2012) Otologic safety of manuka honey. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 41(suppl 1):S21–S30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saito T, Manabe Y, Honda N, Yamada T, Yamamoto T, Saito H (1995) Semiquantitative analysis by scanning electron microscopy of cochlear hair cell damage by ototoxic drugs. Scanning Microsc 9:271–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cernak M, Maitanova N, Cernak A, Maitan J (2012) Honey prophylaxis reduces the risk of endophthalmitis during perioperative period of eye surgery. Phytother Res 26(4):613–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rashad UM, Al-Gezawy SM, El Gezawy E, Azzaz AN (2009) Honey as topical prophylaxis against radio-chemotherapy-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer. J Laryngol Otol 123(2):223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hashemi BA, Bayat A, Kazemei T, Azarpira N (2011) Comparison between topical honey and mafenide acetate in treatment of auricular burn. Am J Otolaryngol 32(1):28–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider M, Coyle S, Warnock M, Gow I, Fyfe L (2013) Anti-microbial activity and composition of manuka and portobello honey. Phytother Res 27(8):1162–1168. doi: 10.1002/ptr.4844 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lusby PE, Coombes AL, Wilkinson JM (2005) Bactericidal activity of different honeys against pathogenic bacteria. Arch Med Res 36(5):464–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    French VM, Cooper RA, Molan PC (2005) The antibacterial activity of honey against coagulase-negative Staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 56:228–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mavric E, Wittmann S, Barth G, Henle T (2008) Identification and quantification of methylglyoxal as the dominant antibacterial constituent of manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New Zealand. Mol Nutr Food Res 52:483–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kilty SJ, AlMutari D, Duval M, Groleau MA, De Nanassy J, Gomes MM (2010) Manuka honey: histological effect on respiratory mucosa. Am J Rhinol Allergy 24(2):e63–e66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goycoolea MV, Muchow D, Schachern P (1988) Experimental studies on round window structure: function and permeability. Laryngoscope 98((6 Pt 2 Suppl 44)):1–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller J (1970) Audibility curve of the chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am 48(2):513–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heffner RS, Heffner HE (1991) Behavioral hearing range of the chinchilla. Hear Res 52(1):13–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Aron
    • 1
    • 2
  • O. V. Akinpelu
    • 1
    • 2
  • K. Gasbarrino
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. J. Daniel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Montreal Children’s HospitalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations