Skip to main content

Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Review

Larval Therapy for Chronic Cutaneous Ulcers: Historical Review and Future Perspectives

December 2017
1044-7946
Wounds 2017;29(12):367–373.

Abstract

Cutaneous ulcers tend to become chronic and have a profound impact on quality of life. These wounds may become infected and lead to greater morbidity and even mortality. In the past, larvae (ie, maggots) of certain common flies (Lucilia sericata and Lucilia cuprina) were considered useful in ulcer management because they only remove necrotic tissue while promoting healthy tissue in the wound bed, thus helping wounds heal faster. Recently, maggots from several other fly species (Calliphora vicina, Calliphora vomitoria, Phormia regina, Chrysomya albiceps, Sarcophaga carnaria, and Hermetia illucens) have been shown in vitro to possess characteristics (ie, debridement efficacy and putative antimicrobial potentialities) that make them suitable candidates for possible use in clinical practice. This review presents a historical analysis of larval debridement and speculates future directions based on the literature presented.

 

Introduction

Chronic skin ulcers, such as diabetic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure ulcers, are increasing in prevalence, representing a costly problem in health care. A rapid rise in the treatment of chronic wounds has been linked to an aging population and an increasing incidence of diabetes and obesity.1 Leg ulcers are most common, accounting for 43% of skin ulcers.1 Chronic cutaneous ulcer treatment places a significant burden on the patient and the health care system; in addition, these nonhealing ulcers place the patient at much higher risk for lower extremity amputation. 

Treatment of chronic cutaneous ulcers includes a number of different regimens: glycemic control, revascularization, surgery, local wound treatment, offloading, and other nonsurgical treatments. Proper local wound care consists of tissue debridement, control of persistent inflammation or infection, and moisture balance before considering advanced therapies for wounds that are not healing at the expected rate (3 months).  

Maggot therapy is a simple and successful method for cleansing infected and necrotic wounds. The use of maggots has become increasingly important in the treatment of nonhealing wounds, particularly those infected with the multidrug-resistant pathogen, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Indeed, it has been shown that excretions/secretions from the blowfly Lucilia sericata (LS) exhibit potent, thermally stable, protease-resistant antibacterial activity against in vitro MRSA.2 The application of sterile LS larvae to an infected nonhealing wound results in the removal of necrotic tissue, disinfection, rapid elimination of infecting microorganisms, and enhancement of the healing process.3

Debridement refers to the removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential of the remaining healthy tissue. In order to debride necrotic tissue, larvae (ie, maggots) produce a mixture of proteolytic enzymes, including collagenase, that breaks down the necrotic tissue to a semi-liquid form to be absorbed and digested. Debridement is facilitated by wound disturbance as the larvae crawl around the tissue using their mouthhooks.4

Maggot therapy is administered by applying sterilized fly larvae to the wound at a density of 5 to 8 per cm2. To apply larval therapy, a wound-sized hole is cut from a hydrocolloid dressing, a self-adhesive wafer with a semipermeable outer membrane. This both protects the skin from irritation by the maggot’s proteolytic enzymes and forms the base of the adhesive dressing. The sterile maggots are then moved from their container to a special piece of nylon netting placed on a nonwoven swab to draw away moisture. The netting is then bunched up to create a cage for the larvae, placed on the wound, and secured to the hydrocolloid dressing by waterproof adhesive tape. The dressing is finally covered with a simple absorbent pad held in place with adhesive tape or a bandage.3 Maggots are kept over the wound for cycles of about 48 hours; two 48-hour cycles are usually applied each week.

The aim of this paper is to review the history and mechanisms of action of larval therapy while speculating some future directions.

Past and Current Methods

Larval debridement therapy has been utilized for medical purposes for hundreds, if not thousands, of years and is recorded in ancient folk medicine, such as the Chinese in Yunan, the hill people of Burma, the Aborigines in Australia, and the Mayans in Central America.3 Since the 1700s, surgeons have documented that the larvae of certain common blow flies or greenbottles (LS) only remove dead tissue while promoting healthy tissue in the wound bed, helping wounds heal faster.2 The beneficial effects of using larvae in wounds were first noticed by Ambroise Paré in 1557.5 Dominique-Jean Larrey (1766–1842), another French surgeon, observed that maggots of the blue fly only removed dead tissue and had a positive effect on the remaining healthy tissue during the Egyptian expedition in Syria.3 The first officially documented application of maggots was performed by John Forney Zacharias (1837–1901), a surgeon from Maryland during the American Civil War (1861–1865).3 Later, William Baer refined the technique by using sterile maggots to prevent maggot-induced wound infection.5 The therapy became increasingly popular and was widely used for the treatment of infected or chronic wounds across Europe and North America during the 1930s.3

Mechanism of action. Experiments performed by Barnes et al6 have demonstrated that LS excretions/secretions are able to inhibit bacteria growth in both stationary and exponential phases. For these reasons, maggot debridement was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004.

Prete7 demonstrated that hemolymph and alimentary secretions of larvae were growth stimulatory for in vitro human fibroblasts. Both factors increased the proliferation of fibroblasts stimulated by epidermal growth factor or interleukin 6. Clinical observations provided evidence for growth stimulation in chronic wounds.8

Lucilia sericata larvae digest necrotic tissue and pathogens (Figure 1); they discriminate between necrotic and healthy (granulating) tissue. This technique is rapid and selective, although some of the evidence to support its use is still derived from anecdotal reports.9 Depending on the size and depth of the wound, 50 to 1000 sterile maggots, about 24 to 48 hours old, are applied 2 to 4 times per week and left on for a period of 24 to 72 hours.5 Several papers have described the utility of maggot debridement therapy,10-22 though there is only 1 randomized, specific LS clinical debridement trial using maggot therapy.23 Clinical studies have demonstrated maggot therapy to be safe and effective in patients both with and without diabetes and for many problematic wounds, including pressure ulcers, venous stasis leg ulcers, wound bed preparation prior to surgical closure, and a variety of other traumatic, infectious, and vascular wounds.24-39 

Wayman et al40 compared the cost of larval therapy with hydrogel dressings in the treatment of necrotic venous ulcers. Twelve patients with sloughy venous ulcers were randomized to receive either larval therapy or the control hydrogel therapy. Effective debridement occurred with a maximum of 1 larval application in all 6 experimental patients; 2 of the 6 hydrogel patients still required dressings at 1 month. The median cost of treatment of the larval group was £78.64 compared with £136.23 for the control group (P < .05). Thus, this study confirmed both the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of larval therapy in the debridement of sloughy venous ulcers.40

Future of Larval Therapy

In the present authors’ opinion, increased knowledge of fly biology and larval debridement benefits for chronic skin ulcer treatment as well as the clinical study focus on only 2 species (LS and Lucilia cuprina) call for an investigation of new optimal treatment protocols to find suitable, alternative maggot candidates. 

An investigation of new potential species for maggot therapy should be focused on the Diptera order of flies, specifically those families such as the Calliphoridae (blowflies) and Sarcophagidae (fleshflies) (Table); the evolutionary patterns of these 2 families have shifted from scavenging animal matter to parasitism, moving from purely saprophagous free-living larvae feeding on decaying animals to facultative parasitic free-living larvae feeding on necrotic tissues and live animal wounds.41,42 Species with obligatory parasitic habits, with larvae only able to live on the tissues of living animals, and those causing malign myiasis (parasitic infestation of a live mammal by fly larvae that grows inside the host while feeding on its tissue; eg, all species in the Oestridae family, known as bot flies, or the screwworms Cochliomyia hominivorax and Chrysomya bezziana) must be excluded from this range. Nevertheless, it should be noted that since myiasis is defined as any infestation of live vertebrates (humans and/or animals) with dipterous (order of insects comprising the true flies, characterized by a single pair of membranous wings and a pair of club-shaped balancing organs) larvae which, at least for a certain period, feed in the host’s dead or living tissue, liquid body substances, or ingested food,43 maggot therapy is otherwise known as therapeutic myiasis,5 an artificially induced, benign myiasis performed in a controlled environment by an experienced medical practitioner, where the risks are outweighed by the benefits of debridement, disinfection, and enhanced healing. 

Sherman et al41 listed a summary of biological properties that could make good candidates for maggot therapy, such as the absence of host specificity, the fast rate of larvae development in the host, the ability to feed on necrotic tissues without invading healthy ones, and the straightforward in vitro rearing. As sterilization is a crucial step in maggot therapy, egg laying also was included among positive properties, as eggs are usually much easier to sterilize than larvae; this is why the mainly oviparous Calliphoridae (producing eggs that hatch outside the body of the mother) were probably better candidates than the larviparous species (laying living larvae instead of eggs).

Besides these characteristics, the authors also suggest considering larvae that have higher chances to survive and thrive in infected wounds/ulcers, create a better environment for wound healing, and produce substances that are recognized as being potentially useful in clinical therapy, such as antimicrobial compounds. For these reasons, other members of saprophagous fly families could represent potential maggot therapy candidates, provided their biology is at least fairly well known and that they are easy to rear and obtain in sterilized conditions. Species of interest in forensic entomology are therefore among the best models to choose from due to the extensive studies performed to obtain the development curves useful for the postmortem interval estimates.

A glance at the typical life cycle of the scavenging-necrophagous fly species (Figure 2) helps clarify its biology. The first instar larvae crawl on the substrate (dead tissue, cellular debris, exudates of wounds or corpses), probing and finely macerating it by means of their hook-like mouthparts. The larvae feed upon the substrate, performing an extracorporeal digestion by secreting proteolytic enzymes and ingesting the liquefied matter; by doing this, they grow bigger and molt twice. Upon maturity, the maggots cease feeding and leave the substrate, searching for a drier and suitably protected area to pupate; adult flies emerge 1 to 3 weeks later. The whole lifespan varies according to the species and is strictly related to the environmental temperature. The development of fly larvae is promoted by temperate climate temperatures and high humidity; wounds may, therefore, represent the optimum for maggot growth rate. Well adapted to living in habitats which typically contain a vast array of pathogenic microorganisms, these larvae have developed several effective mechanisms for survival in these conditions: physical removal of microorganisms by ingesting them, the release of antimicrobial substances by means of secretion/excretion, and specific adaptations of the cuticle and inner lipid.44-49 

On the basis of these considerations, several other fly species have been shown in vitro to have qualities indicative of putative debridement, antifungal, and antibacterial potentialities.50-56 These qualities make them potentially good candidates in clinical practice for chronic skin ulcer management. Among them are members of the Calliphoridae, Sarcophagidae, and Stratiomyidae families.

As such, the authors propose that larvae from Calliphora vicina, Calliphora vomitoria (Figure 3), Phormia regina, Chrysomya albiceps, Sarcophaga carnaria, and Hermetia illucens be investigated as new, useful biological agents for ulcer management as new maggot therapy species (NMTS). The authors hypothesize that the NMTS-debrided organic compounds found in salivary secretions and hemolymph, gut, cuticular, and internal lipids and the antimicrobial action of the aforementioned larvae may have the same as or greater therapeutic potentials than those of LS or conventional, mechanical debridement. These compounds include fatty acid methyl ester and alcohol fractions; defensin-like peptide 4; azelaic acid; phenylacetic and phenylpropionic acids; sebacic acid; 3-hydroxy-2-methyl-butanoic acid; (E,E)-2,4-decadienal; and synthetic BhSGAMP-1 peptide. 

Role in Modern Wound Healing

Despite today’s high-tech medicine, basic principles that evolved in nature can still be efficacious and may help the physician combat specific medical problems. In selected cases, use of properly identified maggots, natural removers of necrotic and infected tissue, may result in adequate wound healing and prevent limb amputation.57

Nonetheless, besides correct wound care management, several important factors determine a patient’s ability to heal. Most importantly, an adequate blood supply must be present. Whenever possible, it is important to treat the cause of an ulcer: pressure ulcers require pressure redistribution and attention to other cofactors such as friction, shear, mobility, nutrition, and control of external moisture, including feces; venous ulcers require edema control, the cornerstone being compression therapy and activity modifications to activate the calf muscle pump; and diabetic foot ulcers require pressure offloading and appropriate control of diabetes and its complications, including infection. There are personal and health care system factors that may prevent adequate correction of the cause; when it is not possible to provide the best practice, clinicians may consider treating the wound to prevent complications and to improve quality of life rather than have healing as the primary outcome.58

Two of the most important cornerstones in the care of any ulcer are (1) debriding healable wounds by removing nonviable, contaminated, or infected tissue (through surgical, autolytic, enzymatic, mechanical, or biological methods); and (2) assessing and treating the wound for increased bacterial burden or infection.58 Accordingly, the proposed hypothesis may prove to be useful for these purposes.

Conclusions

The authors believe that sufficient evidence exists to support the testing of NMTS as therapy agents, though studies on the in vivo effects and mechanisms of NMTS need to be carried out. Moreover, a cost-effectiveness comparative analysis of the different larval therapies proposed should be conducted.

Acknowledgments

Affiliations: Department of Medicine and Surgery, Plastic Surgery Chair, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; Cutaneous, Mininvasive, Regenerative and Plastic Surgery Unit, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy; Department of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy; and Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma

Correspondence:
Edoardo Raposio, MD, PhD, FICS
Director, Plastic Surgery Chair, 
Department of Medicine and Surgery
University of Parma
Via Gramsci 14
43126, Parma, Italy
edoardo.raposio@unipr.it

Disclosure: The authors disclose no financial or other conflicts of interest. 

References

1. Charles J, Harrison C, Britt H. Chronic skin ulcers. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(9):587. 2. Bexfield A, Nigam Y, Thomas S, Ratcliffe NA. Detection and partial characterisation of two antibacterial factors from the excretions/secretions of the medicinal maggot Lucilia sericata and their activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Microb Infect. 2004;6(14):1297-1304. 3. Whitaker IS, Twine C, Whitaker MJ, Welck M, Brown CS, Shandall A. Larval therapy from antiquity to the present day: mechanisms of action, clinical applications and future potential. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(980):409-413. 4. Valachova I, Takac P, Majtan J. Midgut lysozymes of Lucilia sericata – new antimicrobials involved in maggot debridement therapy. Insect Mol Biol. 2014;23(6):779-787. 5. Parnés A, Lagan KM. Larval therapy in wound management: a review. Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61(3):488-493. 6. Barnes KM, Dixon RA, Gennard DE. The antibacterial potency of the medicinal maggot, Lucilia sericata (Meigen): variation in laboratory evaluation. J Microbiol Meth. 2010; 82(3):234–237. 7. Prete PE. Growth effects of Phaenicia sericata larval extracts on fibroblasts: mechanism for wound healing by maggot therapy. Life Sci. 1997;60(8):505-510. 8. Wollina U, Liebold K, Schmidt WD, Hartmann M, Fassler D. Biosurgery supports granulation and debridement in chronic wounds–clinical data and remittance spectroscopy measurement. Int J Dermatol. 2002;41(10):635-639. 9. Eneroth M, van Houtum WH. The value of debridement and vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(Suppl 1):S76–S80. 10. Tamura T, Cazander G, Rooijakkers SH, Trouw LA, Nibbering PH. Excretions/secretions from medicinal larvae (Lucilia sericata) inhibit complement activation by two mechanisms [published online ahead of print December 26, 2016]. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(1):41-50. 11. Dauros Singorenko P, Rosario R, Windsor JA, Phillips AR, Blenkiron C. The transcriptional responses of cultured wound cells to the excretions and secretions of medicinal Lucilia sericata larvae [published online ahead of print November 21, 2016]. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(1): 51-61. 12. Daeschlein G, Napp M, Assadian O, et al. Viability of Lucilia sericata maggots after exposure to wound antiseptics [published online ahead of print July 11, 2016]. Int Wound J. 2017;14(3):512-515. 13. Nigam Y, Morgan C. Does maggot therapy promote wound healing? The clinical and cellular evidence [published online ahead of print December 21, 2015]. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(5):776-782. 14. Martínez Faura MD, Franco Romero M, Ordoño Martínez C, García Mallo ME. Maggot therapy: case study in home care [in Spanish]. Rev Enferm. 2016;39(4):26-29. 15. Choudhary V, Choudhary M, Pandey S, Chauhan VD, Hasnani JJ. Maggot debridement therapy as primary tool to treat chronic wound of animals. Vet World. 2016;9(4):403-409.  16. Pöppel AK, Kahl M, Baumann A, et al.  A Jonah-like chymotrypsin from the therapeutic maggot Lucilia sericata plays a role in wound debridement and coagulation [published online ahead of print January 7, 2016]. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2016;70:138-147.  17. Arabloo J, Grey S, Mobinizadeh M, Olyaeemanesh A, Hamouzadeh P, Khamisabadi K. Safety, effectiveness and economic aspects of maggot debridement therapy for wound healing. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;20:319.  18. DeFazio MV, Felder JM 3rd, Economides JM, Attinger CE. Home improvement in maggot therapy: designing a simple, cost-effective, closed-system habitat to facilitate biodébridement of complex distal lower extremity wounds. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5):722e-723e.  19. Kahl M, Gökçen A, Fischer S, et al. Maggot excretion products from the blowfly Lucilia sericata contain contact phase/intrinsic pathway-like proteases with procoagulant functions [published online ahead of print May 7, 2015]. Thromb Haemost. 2015;114(2):277-288.  20. Polakovičova S, Polák Š, Kuniaková M, et al. The effect of salivary gland extract of Lucilia sericata maggots on human dermal fibroblast proliferation within collagen/hyaluronan membrane in vitro: transmission electron microscopy study. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2015;28(5):221-226.  21. Pinheiro MA, Ferraz JB, Junior MA, et al. Use of maggot therapy for treating a diabetic foot ulcer colonized by multidrug resistant bacteria in Brazil. Indian J Med Res. 2015;141(3):340-342.  22. Bohac M, Cambal M, Zamborsky R, Takac P, Fedeles J Sr. Maggot therapy in treatment of a complex hand injury complicated by mycotic infection. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2015; 116(11):671-673.  23. Markevich YO, McLeod-Roberts J, Mousley M, Melloy E. Maggot therapy for diabetic neuropathic foot wounds. Diabetologia. 2000;43(Suppl 11): A15. 24. Wilasrusmee C, Marjareonrungrung M, Eamkong S, et al. Maggot therapy for chronic ulcer: a retrospective cohort and a meta-analysis [published online ahead of print December 30, 2013]. Asian J Surg. 2014;37(3):138-147. 25. Cowan LJ, Stechmiller JK, Phillips P, Yang Q, Schultz G. Chronic wounds, biofilms and use of medicinal larvae. Ulcers. 2013;2013:487024. doi: 10.1155/2013/487024. 26. Chan DC, Fong DH, Leung JY, Patil NG, Leung GK. Maggot debridement therapy in chronic wound care. Hong Kong Med J. 2007;13(5):382-386.  27. Masiero FS, Thyssen PJ. Evaluation of conventional therapeutic methods versus maggot therapy in the evolution of healing of tegumental injuries in Wistar rats with and without diabetes mellitus [published online ahead of print March 15, 2016]. Parasitol Res. 2016;115(6):2403-2407.  28. McCaughan D, Cullum N, Dumville J;  VenUS II Team. Patients’ perceptions and experiences of venous leg ulceration and their attitudes to larval therapy: an in-depth qualitative study [published online ahead of print February 15, 2013]. Health Expect. 2015;18(4):527-541.  29. Mudge E, Price P, Walkley N, Harding KG. A randomized controlled trial of larval therapy for the debridement of leg ulcers: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open, observer blind, parallel group study [published online ahead of print December 2, 2013]. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(1):43-51.  30. Cazander G, Pritchard DI, Nigam Y, Jung W, Nibbering PH. Multiple actions of Lucilia sericata larvae in hard-to-heal wounds: larval secretions contain molecules that accelerate wound healing, reduce chronic inflammation and inhibit bacterial infection [published online ahead of print October 7, 2013]. Bioessays. 2013;35(12):1083-1092.  31. Rafter L. Using larval therapy in the community setting. Br J Community Nurs. 2013;Suppl:S20, S22-25.  32. Pritchard DI, Nigam Y. Maximising the secondary beneficial effects of larval debridement therapy. J Wound Care. 2013;22(11):610-611, 614-616.  33. McInnes W, Ruzehaji N, Wright N, Cowin AJ, Fitridge R. Venous ulceration contaminated by multi-resistant organisms: larval therapy and debridement. J Wound Care. 2013;22(10 Suppl):S27-S30.  34. Rafter L. Larval therapy applied to a large arterial ulcer: an effective outcome. Br J Nurs. 2013;22(6):S24, S26-S30.  35. Blueman D, Bousfield C. The use of larval therapy to reduce the bacterial load in chronic wounds. J Wound Care. 2012;21(5):244-253.  36. Menon J. Maggot therapy: a literature review of methods and patient experience. Br J Nurs. 2012;21(5):S38-242. 37. Sherman RA. Maggot therapy takes us back to the future of wound care: new and improved maggot therapy for the 21st century. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(2):336-344. 38. Paul AG, Ahmad NW, Lee HL, et al. Maggot debridement therapy with Lucilia cuprina: a comparison with conventional debridement in diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2009;6(1):39–46. 39. Akhtar N, Abdel-Rehim S, Rodrigues J, Brooks P.  The use of larvae therapy to debride full thickness burns in the anaesthetically unfit patient: the Nottingham experience [published online ahead of print June 1, 2011]. Burns. 2011;37(6):e44-e49. 40. Wayman J, Nirojogi V, Walker A, Sowinski A, Walker MA. The cost effectiveness of larval therapy in venous ulcers. J Tissue Viability. 2000;10(3):91-94. 41. Sherman RA, Hall MJ, Thomas S. Medicinal maggots: an ancient remedy for some contemporary afflictions. Ann Rev Entomol. 2000;45:55-81. 42. Francesconi F, Lupi O. Myiasis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012: 25(1):79–105. 43. Zumpt F. Myiasis in Man and Animals in the Old World: A Textbook for Physicians, Veterinarians, and Zoologists. London, UK: Butterworths; 1965:232. 44. Barnes KM, Gennard DE, Dixon RA. An assessment of the antibacterial activity in larval excretion/secretion of four species of insects recorded in association with corpses, using Lucilia sericata meigen as the marker species [published online ahead of print March 22, 2010]. Bull Entomol Res. 2010;100(6):635-640. 45. Choi WH, Yun JH, Chu JP, Chu KB. Antibacterial effect of extracts of Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larvae against gram-negative bacteria. Entomol Res. 2012;42(5): 219-226. 46. Díaz-Roa A, Gaona MA, Segura NA, Suárez D, Patarroyo MA, Bello FJ. Sarconesiopsis magellanica (Diptera: Calliphoridae) excretions and secretions have potent antibacterial activity [published online ahead of print April 19, 2014]. Acta Trop. 2014;136:37-43. 47. Park SI, Chang BS, Yoe SM. Detection of antimicrobial substances from larvae of the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). Entomol Res. 2014;44(2):58-64. 48. Pinilla YT, Moreno-Pérez DA, Patarroyo MA, Bello FJ. Proteolytic activity regarding Sarconesiopsis magellanica (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larval excretions and secretions [published online ahead of print September 25, 2013]. Acta Trop. 2013;128(3):686-691. 49. Pinilla YT, Patarroyo MA, Velandia ML, Segura NA, Bello FJ. The effects of Sarconesiopsis magellanica larvae (Diptera: Calliphoridae) excretions and secretions on fibroblasts [published online ahead of print November 8, 2014]. Acta Trop. 2015;142:26-33. 50. Gołębiowski M, Cerkowniak M, Urbanek A, et al. Identification and antifungal activity of novel organic compounds found in cuticular and internal lipids of medically important flies [published online ahead of print June 26, 2014]. Microbiol Res. 2015;170:213-222.  51. Wang J, Gao Q, Liu Q, Xiang L, Wang Y, Wang D. Expression of a modified antimicrobial peptide BhSGAMP-1-S (Bradysia hygida) in Escherichia coli and characterization of its activity. Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao. 2010;50(9):1185-1193. 52. Gołębiowski M, Cerkowniak M, Urbanek A, et al. Antimicrobial activity of untypical lipid compounds in the cuticular and internal lipids of four fly species [published online ahead of print November 18, 2013]. J Appl Microbiol. 2014;116(2):269-287. 53. Gołębiowski M, Cerkowniak M, Dawgul M, Kamysz W, Boguś M, Stepnowski P. The antifungal activity of the cuticular and internal fatty acid methyl esters and alcohols in Calliphora vomitoria [published online ahead of print April 8, 2013]. Parasitology. 2013;140(8):972-985. 54. Park SI, Kim JW, Yoe SM. Purification and characterization of a novel antibacterial peptide from black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae [published online ahead of print May 5, 2015]. Dev Comp Immunol. 2015;52(1):98-106.  55. Reames MK, Christensen C, Luce EA. The use of maggots in wound debridement. Ann Plas Surg. 1988;21(4):388-391. 56. Ratcliffe NA, Vieira CS, Mendoça PM, et al. Detection and preliminary physico-chemical properties of antimicrobial components in the native excretions/secretions of three species of Chrysomya (Diptera, Calliphoridae) in Brazil [published online ahead of print March 24, 2015]. Acta Trop. 2015;147:6-11.  57. Jukema GN, Menon AG, Bernards AT, Steenvoorde P, Taheri Rastegar A, van Dissel JT. Amputation-sparing treatment by nature: “surgical” maggots revisited. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(12):1566-1571. 58. Sibbald RG, Orsted HL, Coutts PM, Keast DH. Best practice recommendations for preparing the wound bed: update 2006. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007;20(7):390-405.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement