A 44 year old female, who was working as a volunteer in a poor fishing community had a crush injury on her foot in India. The bones were set in a hospital in India.

The only available products in the hospital and in the city’s pharmacies were cotton wool, gauze or surgical tape. These products tend to stick to the wound, dry it, and are known to prevent healing. They can also damage granulation tissue upon removal and leave fibers on the wound, thus providing an additional environment for bacterial infection. 

The patient, a trained nurse, needed a dressing that could provide the moist wound environment needed for healing whilst providing antibacterial protection. She had used L-Mesitran in the past in the UK. Honey is also a well known wound care product in hot regions. She also needed dressing that was waterproof and could stay in situ when washed. 

Two of the stitches had not remained in situ on the medial wound and about 1.5 cm of the wound was open and bleeding. The expectation was that the antibacterial properties of the dressing would address the infection, if it was already infected, or otherwise prevent it.

The dressing was changed daily. No adverse effects were observed, nor was any pain experienced upon application or at dressing changes. The wound healed well and the scarring is minimal and less noticeable.