Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access October 22, 2008

Comparison of octenidine dihydrochloride (Octenisept®), polihexanide (Prontosan®) and povidon iodine (Betadine®) for topical antibacterial effects in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-contaminated, full-skin thickness burn wounds in rats

  • Fatih Uygur EMAIL logo , Mustafa Özyurt , Rahmi Evinç , Tugrul Hosbul , Bahattin Çeliköz and Tuncer Haznedaroglu
From the journal Open Medicine


Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most frequently isolated organisms from infected burn wounds and a significant cause of nosocomial infection and septic mortality among burn patients. In this animal study, three antiseptic agents which were Octenidine dihydrochloride (Octenisept®, Schülke & Mayr, Norderstedt, Germany), polyhexanide (Prontosan®, B. Braun, Melsungen AG, Germany) and povidon iodine (Betadine, Purdue Pharma L.P, Stamford, USA) were compared to assess the antiseptic effect of their applications on experimental burn wounds in in rats contaiminated with P. aeruginosa. All treatment modalities were effective against P. aeruginosa because there were significant differences between treatment groups and control groups. The mean eschar concentrations were not different between polyhexanide and povidon iodine groups, but there were significant differences between the octenidine dihydrochloride group and the other treatment groups, indicating that the Octenidine dihydrochloride significantly eliminated P. aeruginosa more effectively in the tissues compared to the to other agents. All treatment modalities were sufficient to prevent the P. aeruginosa invasion into the muscle and to cause systemic infection. In conclusion, Octenidine dihydrochloride is the most effective antiseptic agent in the treatment of the P. aeruginosa-contaminated burn wounds; Octenidine dihydrochloride can be considered as a treatment choice because of its peculiar ability of limit the frequency of replacing wound dressings.

[1] Pruitt, B. A., Jr., Infection and the burn patient, Br. J. Surg., 1990, 77, 1081–1082 in Google Scholar

[2] Pruitt, B. A., Jr., The diagnosis and treatment of infection in the burn patient, Burns Incl. Therm. Inj. 1984, 11, 79–91 10.1016/0305-4179(84)90129-3Search in Google Scholar

[3] Greefield E., McManus AT., Infection complication, prevention and strategies for their control, Nurs. Clin. North. Am., 1997, 32, 297–309 10.1016/S0029-6465(22)02188-0Search in Google Scholar

[4] McManus A., Twenty-five year review of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia in a burn centre, Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol., 1985, 4, 219–223 in Google Scholar

[5] Botzenhart K., Doring G., Ecology and epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In., M. Campo, editor. Pseudomonas aeruginosa as an Opportunistic Pathogen., New York, Plenum Press, 1993, 1–18 10.1007/978-1-4615-3036-7_1Search in Google Scholar

[6] Revathi G., Puri J., Jain B., Bacteriology of burns., Burns., 1998, 24, 347–349 in Google Scholar

[7] Tredget E., Shankowsky H., Rennie R., Burrell R., Logsetty S., Pseudomonas infections in the thermally injured patient, Burns, 2004, 30, 3–26 in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Walker HL., Mason AD., A standard animal burn, J. Trauma, 1968, 8, 1049–51 10.1097/00005373-196811000-00006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Herndon DN., editor.Herndon’s total burn care. 2nd ed. London, W.B. Saunders Co., 2001, p. 98–169 Search in Google Scholar

[10] Houari A., Di Martino P., Effect of chlorhexidine and benzalkonium chloride on bacterial biofilm formation, Lett Appl Microbiol., 2007 Dec, 45(6), 652–6. Epub 2007 Oct 17 in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] DeQueiroz GA., Day DF., Antimicrobial activity and effectiveness of a combination of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide in killing and removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms from surfaces, J. Appl Microbiol., 2007 Oct, 103(4), 794–802 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03299.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Sreenivasan PK., Chorny RC., The effects of disinfectant foam on microbial biofilms, Biofouling. 2005, 21(2), 141–149 in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Ulkür E., Oncül O., Karagöz H., Celiköz B., Cavu§lu S., Comparison of silver-coated dressing (Acticoat), chlorhexidine acetate 0.5% (Bactigrass), and silver sulfadiazine 1% (Silverdin) for topical antibacterial effect in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-contaminated, full-skin thickness burn wounds in rats, J. Burn Care Rehabil., 2005, 26(5), 430–433 in Google Scholar

[14] Kramer A. et al., Comparison of the toxicity of Lavasept and selected antiseptic agents, Hyg. Med., 1993, 18, 9–16 Search in Google Scholar

[15] Harke HP., Octenidine dihydrochloride, properties of a new antimicrobial active agent, Zbl. Hyg., 1989, 188, 188–93 Search in Google Scholar

[16] Sedlock DM., Bailey DM., Microbicidal activity of octenidine hydrochloride, a new alkanediylbis[pyridine] germicidal agent, Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother., 1985, 28, 786–90 10.1128/AAC.28.6.786Search in Google Scholar

[17] Willenegger H., Local antiseptics in surgery — rebirth and advances, Unfallchirurgie., 1994, 20, 94–110 in Google Scholar

[18] Ikeda T., Tazuke S., Watanabe M., Interaction of biologically active molecules with phospholipid membranes, I. Fluorescence depolarization studies on the effect of polymeric biocide bearing biguanide groups in the main chain, Biochim. Biophys. Acta., 1983, 735, 380–6 in Google Scholar

[19] Broxton P., Woodcock PM., Heatley F., Gilbert P., Interaction of some polyhexamethylene biguanides and membrane phospholipids in Escherichia coli., J. Appl. Bacteriol., 1984, 57, 115–24 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1984.tb02363.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Rietkötter J., Körber A., Grabbe S., Dissemond J., Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a chronic wound by a new polyhexanide hydrogel. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol., 2007 Nov, 21(10), 1416–7 in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Daeschlein G., Assadian O., Bruck JC., Meinl C., Kramer A., Koch Feasibility and clinical applicability of polihexanide for treatment of second-degree burn wounds, SSkin. Pharmacol. Physiol., 2007, 20(6), 292–296 in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Burks RI., Povidone-iodine solution in wound treatment, Phys. Ther., 1998, 78, 212–218 10.1093/ptj/78.2.212Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Harvey SC., Antiseptics and disinfectants, In, Gilman AG., Goodman LS., Rall TW., Murad F., eds. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 7th ed. New York, Macmillian Publishing Co. Inc. 1985, 959–973 Search in Google Scholar

[24] LaRocca R., LaRocca MAK., Ansell JM., Microbiology of povidoneiodine, an oveniew. In, Digenis GA., Ansell JM., eds. Proceedings of the Intemational Symposium on Povidone. Lexington, Ky, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, 1983, 101–119 Search in Google Scholar

[25] Anderson RL., Iodophor antiseptics, intrinsic microbial contamination with resident bacteria, Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol., 1989, 10, 443–446 in Google Scholar PubMed

Published Online: 2008-10-22
Published in Print: 2008-12-1

© 2008 Versita Warsaw

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Downloaded on 28.3.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow