Former UC Irvine Professor Ronald A. Sherman is making new headlines using an old technique: maggot therapy. Although the practice of maggot treatment dates back many centuries, recent scientific studies generated by Sherman have spawned a renewed interest in the procedure.
Maggots are selective eaters, so they will eat dead flesh while leaving the live tissue intact. This makes them excellent wound cleaners because they are able to remove dead and infected skin on open sores without slowing the growth of new skin.
A recent study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) compared maggot therapy to other mainstream treatments. The research team followed the progress of 270 leg ulcer patients and found that the maggots were actually able to clean out the dead skin faster than traditional ulcer therapy. However, they did not decrease the overall rate of recovery, and they seemed to be more painful.
“In people with leg ulcers, we didn’t find that larval therapy increased healing rates,” said Nicky Cullum of the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York. “It cleans it more quickly, but it didn’t heal it more quickly. It comes down to the aim of treatment. If for some reason rapid debridement is important, then you would choose larval therapy — for example if someone was having a skin graft.”
… Although some are disgusted by the idea of live maggots being placed on them, patients seem to be surprisingly receptive.
“One thing we did find is that patients were not put off … The patients were very enthusiastic,” said Pam Mitchell of BTER.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:55PM
There’s a metaphor in there somewhere. Scathing online maggots maybe?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:03PM
This kind of stuff is really smart. The main obstacle to its widespread adoption is that Big Pharma can’t patent it. (If I can treat a patient with a $1000 bottle of pills from which I get a kickback, or a $5 vial of maggots for which I get none, well — I have boat payments to make!)
Worm therapy is going to be big, too. Mark my words. 🙂
March 30th, 2009 at 1:23PM
francofou: One of the names my siblings used to call me was Maggot (variant of Margaret).
March 30th, 2009 at 2:33PM
I think RJO is a maggot-o-phobe. To say that a vial of maggots costs only $5 is an insult to maggots everywhere. Be glad, RJO, that you didn’t make this assertion in Canada. You’d be up in front of a maggot rights commission in no time…. (big legal costs, no due process, in camera proceedings… just like they treat people here.)
March 30th, 2009 at 3:21PM
Being nibbled by maggots is painful? Who knew?
March 30th, 2009 at 4:10PM
I have a feeling, RJO, that these are not $5 maggots. I suspect that they are more like $500 maggots (i.e., the college presidents of maggots) who need $5000 worth of staff time to apply and remove.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:50PM
> the college presidents of maggots
As long as they’re not the football coaches of maggots I’m ok with it. Healthcare reform has to start somewhere. And given how easy they are to replicate, a flourishing black market will drive the price down pretty quick. ("Hey, buddy, wanna buy some maggots? No prescription needed. Imported from Canada where the maggot-manufacturing standards are as good as ours.")
March 31st, 2009 at 7:49PM
My father recently had maggot therapy for a leg ulcer, and (in his case) it was successful. This in Canada, by the way, though the maggots came from California!
March 31st, 2009 at 8:18PM
Susan: I’m glad to hear it was successful. And fresh maggots from California! There’s a poem in there somewhere.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:01AM
Actually the maggots usually cost under $100.00 for 300-500. Usually need three or four treatments. Any doctor would use maggot therapy to save their limbs or those of a loved one. Then why not on a patient?? If it works, it works. Or is it all about money and not about helping the patient?