Wound Care in Crisis – The Death of Dr. Dakin’s Magical Panacea

DMCA.com Protection Status
Blog Category: 

by Michael Miller DO, FACOS, FAPWCA


One of the most obvious things about being a health care professional is that our goal is to help people get better. The concepts of an ill patient saying to me, "Dr. Miller, I don't want to get better or worse, can you do something to keep me in this condition?" Seems ludicrous and more, improbable. I could not imagine any health care professional being successful if patients remained in the exact same condition weeks after treatment. As I have said in previous blogs, I recognize that while there are many variations on the definition of "better", I think it's safe to say that "better" means improved in some way, shape, or form.

I prefer to keep my wound care simplistic. To my mind, there are three things a wound can do: get better, worse, or stay the same. As a health care professional and wound care specialist, at least one of these three is clearly at odds with my Hippocratic oath and thus untenable. The last of the three may occur but only rarely can I imagine it as a treatment goal and certainly not in the wound care arena. And so, getting a wound to improve is the clear, unmitigated, definitive goal of treatment. If you are not in complete agreement with all of the above, then stop reading now because what follows will make no sense to you. My goal in writing this blog has always been to take on issues and concepts and try to offer simple, lucid, logical arguments to support the point(s) that I want you, the reader, to consider and adopt.

At this point, I want to advise you that I will be digressing from my usual diatribes on political and social issues and take on a definitive wound care issue, namely the use of Dakin's solution in wound care. I must confess to you that my rationale for doing so is that I have recently seen a spate of wound care cases from some very prestigious and nationally recognized facilities in my area whose treatments consisted solely of daily to twice a day Dakin's wet-to-dry dressing changes as the only treatment for the patients whose wounds have not only persisted, but worsened over a period of months with clear documentation of these findings! I will not attempt to impress you with the descriptions of the results of these treatments on these patients whose overall appearance morbidly causes me to describe them as human Swiss cheese. On the "attagirl" side, I work with an extraordinarily skilled, knowledgeable, and compassionate home health care nurse who is now forbidden from contacting the largest and most prestigious burn care center in my area even to update them on their patient's care, for telling them (after receiving yet another patient being treated with Dakin's solution) that their care was substandard, unethical and "primitive".

Recognizing that there is a huge amount of controversy concerning what things define efficacy, and recognizing that science is in a constant state of flux (presumably in the positive, beneficial direction), then the support for any treatment can be divided into three basic categories:
(1) What is logical?; (2) What is based on experience ?; and (3) What is scientifically proven? If you are aware of another category, please let me know.

Let's take on the logical first. Dr. George Roedeheaver's statement regarding "Never put anything into a wound you would not put into your own eye" has always been one of the most basic and fundamental tenets of my wound care practice. Recognizing that due to evolution, our eyes have become the most significant source of sensory input and hence are unquestionably in need of constant protection, one need not be Albert Einstein to recognize that putting stuff into your eye that makes it hurt is a bad idea. The consideration of benefit versus detriment has led me to add my own corollary namely "Wound care products should be edible". I am not saying they should be palatable nor am I encouraging you to supplement your diet with huge mouthfuls of calcium alginate or the latest honey-based products (which taste nothing like my favorite SUE BEE honey). It just makes simple, logical sense that if you suffer no toxic effects when putting something in your mouth (or in your eye), then that product has the highest likelihood of not being detrimental. I believe I can safely assume that none of you has any interest in ingesting any amount of Dakin's solution.

One concept that is overlooked by zealous Dakinites is that for any given wound, at a given time and place with a given treatment, some wounds will heal. We are all aware that merely attending to a wound using simple means improves healing outcomes compared to doing absolutely nothing. Most wound care practitioners also fail to realize (time for the tongue in cheek statement) that for better or worse, there are a multitude of companies whose goal is to make a profit and to do so, they must identify, manufacture, and sell products that are potentially beneficial and have the highest benefit to risk ratio. Products that help heal wounds not only get produced, but also get duplicated in various forms. Can any of you name all of the companies that not just produce, but also the names of all the incarnations of calcium alginates, foams, collagens, and negative pressure systems? And yet there is only a single company producing Dakin's solution. If indeed this product unquestionably helps wounds to heal then why has there been no effort by reputable companies to not only produce Dakin's solution, but perhaps combine it with one of their own unique offerings? It is clearly easy and inexpensive to produce and so the potential for enormous profit should be self-evident. Has Convatec never considered creating Daki-Derm? Will Derma Sciences push the envelope by proudly announcing the introduction of Medi-Daki-Honey? Looking at Dakin's solution through the most "profit-colored" glasses unquestionably shows that in the eyes of the wound care and general chemical manufacturing audience, interest in its sale seems to fall well below having Two Live Crew perform at an AARP convention. If Dakin's solution works so well, why does just a single company manufacture it?

Regarding the experiential consideration, truly experienced wound care specialists and others who have treated wounds for a long time will humorously and embarrassingly recall the use of heat lamps, sugar, milk of magnesia, and aggressive peri-bedsore massage with lotions with successful healing of many open wounds. As a teenage, nursing home orderly (well before the concepts of CNA or CMA were invented) working in a Bucks County, Pennsylvania long-term, indigent care facility in the 1970s, I have clear memories of performing these and other inconceivable treatments on my patients with equally clear memories of many wounds healed. As of this date, I have yet to encounter any of these "treatments" still being perpetrated on patients. And so the arguments of "I've always done it that way", or "I've used Dakin's for many years and it healed a lot of wounds no one else could", or the more common "We only use it for a little while to clean the wound", are essentially indefensible, pitiful excuses which in my mind identify the user as unscientific, uninspired, and unimaginative...in other words, a Wound Care Dabbler.

Lastly, we can talk about scientific evidence. One cannot truly count the number of research studies considered, initiated, and completed trying to identify why wounds fail to heal and what things help wounds heal. I think it is safe to say that within the continuum ranging from absolute, total product failure to the opposite end of total, unquestionable, universal product success, the results of testing the efficacy of all products fall somewhere in the middle. Moreover, that at any given time or place, their success moves a little bit in one direction or the other along this continuum. And so I offer the simplistic but irrefutable concept that regardless of the quality of the scientific research, everything and anything that could conceivably be put in a wound to promote healing will in fact at one time or another demonstrate wound healing (including Froot Loops). I always laugh when I hear of the wound care clinic manager who refuses to allow a pitiable wound care rep access to their precious staff to entice them with yet another silver product or negative pressure system without the rep producing voluminous and meaningless "White Papers", case studies done by "only people who we know and respect", or the always laughable request for the names of, "other major US Hospitals or Universities currently using your product exclusively who have medical staff's greater than 1000, who are at least level II trauma centers, have at least 15 active residency and/or fellowship programs, and have done over 10,000 successful cases with your product". These wound care equivalents of a bar bouncer will, at the same time purposefully avoid taking the same requested information if at first blush, it takes them out of their comfort zone and forces them to consider that there may be other potentially viable, and "better" alternatives. They bristle against information that forces them to recognize that regardless of the science, logic, and their experiences, that what they're doing is at best, questionable and at worst, detrimental. And so at the risk of rattling a few cages, bruising a few egos, and forcing you to conceive of what was previously inconceivable, I offer the following:

Using Google and Medline, I did what I consider a reasonably extensive search for all articles in which Dakin's solution is mentioned. Further, I looked for those that used the terms Dakin's solution and wound care together. There is a fairly extensive number of Internet articles regarding Dakin's solution. The overwhelming majority are either single case studies or "how to" sites. Interestingly, these "how to" sites rarely offered any scientific documentation or citations to support their recommendations and the overwhelming majority were written by laymen.

Nonetheless, I was able to find sites that appeared to have some scientific and historical basis that appeared uniform and consistent (recognizing that these may have gleaned information from each other and not from exclusive, independent sources).

With respect to Dakin's solution, the term "Full Strength" refers to the highest concentration of sodium hypochlorite tolerable to the skin, which is 0.50%. As a result, a solution containing sodium hypochlorite 0.50% is known in the industry as "Full Strength". Likewise, "Half Strength" contains sodium hypochlorite 0.25%, and "Quarter Strength" contains 0.125%. Shortly after its invention by Dr. Dakin for use as an antiseptic on battlefield wounds (recognizing that the other treatments available at that time included mercury, carbolic acid and bloodletting), experiments by Daufresne showed that below 0.45%, the solution is insufficiently active as a bacteriacide, while above 0.50%, it is irritating to the tissues, evidence that has never been definitively refuted. Recognizing that the skin's function is to protect the delicate internal environment from the harsh extra environment; need I say more regarding its effects on exposed tissue? The basis for its use in the earliest literature repeatedly identifies the need for "sterilization" of the wound; a concept that we can safely say is nonexistent. Recognizing that air, exposure to light, factors regarding the ingredients used, and longevity of the final solution all affect the concentration, the odds of your specific solution being in that .05% range between potentially beneficial and definitively detrimental is a fairly large gamble.

An exhaustive review of the literature provides little to no randomized studies (blinded or otherwise) demonstrating evidence of any ongoing and reproducible benefits. A recent study in 2011 from Turkey on Fournier's gangrene treatment suggested benefits of Dakin's when compared to povidone-iodine as the only two treatments offered. Even the sole manufacturer's website's most recent article cited that remotely suggested any benefit in wound healing (and in the home care setting only) was from 2004. The company's proffered literature review in support of other benefits of their product dates from 1997.

To those of you who would still consider the use of Dakin's solution for wound care, despite what I believe is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of no appreciable benefit (and thus only risk), I respectfully request that you send me the address of your wound care clinic to be published in my blog so that evidence-based, patient care-centered, wound care clinicians in your area will know where their newest patients will be coming from. For those of you who also still use Unna boots to treat venous disease, repeatedly debride venous ulcers, swab culture wounds or slather your wounds with topical Gentamycin, you can expect CMS to want to chat with you in the near future regarding your cost/outcome ratio.

Until the next time we ramble together…

About The Author
Michael Miller DO, FACOS, FAPWCA is the Founder and Medical Director of The Wound Healing Centers of Indiana and IndyLymphedema, as well as a clinical consultant, teacher, inventor, and published author.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of WoundSource, Kestrel Health Information, Inc., its affiliates, or subsidiary companies.


I have heard several times in wound care seminars that the use of Dakin's solution to treat a critically colonized/ bioburdened wound is no longer an accepted practice. Would you be willing to provide information on more acceptable options for treatment of critically colonized/bioburdened wounds? I am also hoping you could explain the difference between Dakin's Solution and the wound cleanser Anasept. Anasept lists Sodium Hypochlorite as an ingredient, which is what I thought Dakin's was. But, according to it's product literature, Anasept is non-toxic to wounds. Thanks in advance for your response and help.

Lengthy post, but a lot of good information. I love to read all the blogs you write. This one is near to my heart and I truly believe Dakin's and wet-to-dry need to be left behind in wound care. I did some research for my paper on medications that inhibit and promote healing. I know there are other wound care specialists that believe the same. I support good wound care and want only the best for the patient. Healing wounds is an art and science and few have a true gift. I support you all the time and I know how knowledgeable you are. I will never forget seeing the patient, walk out of the room and both feet. I had asked you to please see him as quick as possible, the other doctors wanted his foot cut off. You saved him and gave him his life back. He danced out of the room and I was happy to dance with him.
You have saved many patients from having a life with a wound no one wanted to heal.


Hi, Love the lively discussion about Dakin's. I have had interactions with a NP wound consultant who is using Dakin's daily on a large wound for weeks on end. After the dakins they are applying Puracol and Optilock due to excessive drainage. I have tried to express my concern that the Dakin's would be fine for a short while but in the long term we are possibly damaging the newly growing cells that the Puracol is trying to grow. She said there are no contraindications to Dakin with Puracol. That may be true, but just because something is not contraindicated doesn't make it a good idea. I would like to see this client heal. But it seems the NP wants to continue the Dakin's and the physician does not seem to be interjecting. This is a very large, deep wound 25 x 19 cm. I would appreciate your insight in any way. Discussion with the NP just seems to make her offer that she discussed with a PHD.

As a nursing instructor who just today stayed 90 minutes after clinical to speak with a wound care consultant about the fact that I did not let my students replace any of the wound packing on a client with (prescribed) Dakin's saturated 4 x 4's - I applaud every word of your well timed and well spoken blog. I am tired, vindicated and most proud of the fact that that client has sterile NS in her beautiful pink, non odorous wounds. The specialist agreed to change the wound care order and we now have 7 more nursing students who understand the difference between thoughtless tradition and best practice.

Totally disagree. Largely Dakin's is cheap and very effective.

Just read another article about how Dakin is more risk then benefit, and found an alternative antimicrobial from NovaBay Pharmaceutical called NeutroPhase


You do realize that novabay's solution is hypochlorous acid, right? The same active ingredient as Dakin's solution.

Bleach (hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid depending on the pH) is very effective at killing bacteria, regardless of who is manufacturing it (Chlorox, Century, Novabay, Puricore).

I am a dermatologist. Bleach baths work for eczema/atopic dermatitis when it gets superinfected with staph or other bacteria (impetigo).

Hello, thanks a lot for getting me informed by this article. I just started using dakins solution recently. I sustained a wound on my leg eight years ago due to a compound fracture I had and the wound has refused to heal. I've used virtually everything I know: calcium alginate, povidone iodine, silver products, collagen, honey etc. just recently someone recommended this dakins solution and today is my 4th day of using it. Howbeit, after reading this article now my morale went down, and I don't even know what next to use. Pls I need your opinion on the way forward, because this wound is a big challenge to me. Thank you!

Thank you for your in-depth blog. I have been uncomfortable with the use of Dakons (I am blind and probably did not spell it correctly) on my husband's diabetic foot wound. In short, in three days, he is scheduled for a TMA on his two remaining toes. Daikons has been used for about one and a half weeks with Santyl used before that. No improvement. The remainder of his wound in his foot is healing nicely with nothing being used now.
With nothing else to lose, I am considering going to a complimentary/alternative/integrative doctor to find out if there are alternatives to amputation.
Sorry for my ramblings. I am so frightened at the prospect of more amputations and do not who to contact. If there any information you could provide, I would greatly appreciate it.

Nancy, I hope I found your comment in time to help your husband avoid an amputation. I used EUSOL (the British version of Dakin's) prior to discovering PolyMem. Now I clean the wound initially as tolerated by the patient, using sharp debridement, scrubbing, or just a gentle saline rinse, and then I apply PolyMem to the wound while it is still moist from my final saline rinse. I have found that wounds become clean very quickly because the PolyMem dressings have a built-in continuous wound cleansing system that works with the body's natural enzymes and white blood cells - it is autolytic debridement PLUS. With PolyMem, there is no need to clean or even rinse the wound bed at dressing changes - just remove the saturated dressing (which will be covered with yuck at first) and replace it with a new one. The dressings pull fluid from the body into the wound bed at first, which can dramatically increase the amount of drainage as the wound bed is atraumatically cleaned up by the dressings. It is important to warn families and staff so that they do not mistake this increase in exudate for infection - (unlike infectious drainage, it does not have a foul odor and is not thick or dark colored). I have had excellent results using PolyMem on large diabetic foot wounds. They quickly became clean, stayed clean, and completely closed in a very short time. I have been so impressed with PolyMem that I now work for the family-owned company that makes these dressings, trying to get the word out about them!

I read your article and would like to point out that the use of Dakin's helped save my husband's foot. It was the ONLY thing that worked. We packed a deep wound with moist to dry dressings for six months and it healed and closed up nicely. Every patient is different and I believe you have to do what is right for the patient, not what is right for the doctor. No disrespect. I just have first-hand knowledge of what actually worked.

i have had a patients with a 10cm tunnel pack with Dakins solution, it healed.

Although I appreciate your extensive experience, I can honestly say that your insulting and disparaging remarks about fellow healthcare clinicians turned me right off. As a wound specialist myself, and a Dakin's avoider in the past, I have had some eye-opening experiences using it. In a long-term acute care facility, I have seen Dakin's heal extensive wounds on numerous patients. Using 1/4 strength to minimize cytotoxicity, we were able to heal wounds on extremely ill individuals, and I have *never* experienced any resistance to healing with that strength. Seeing patients daily really drove the point home, as we could see the wounds improving.
Bottom line: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
(And if you really want to educate and inspire, you might want to adjust your attitude towards your peers)

"Never put anything into a wound you would not put into your own eye" is not scientific, nor is "Wound care products should be edible". They are slogans, intellectually equivalent to "don't eat anything you can't pronounce", which I consider a signpost for willful ignorance. A wound is not an eye or a mouth (or stomach).

Neither you nor any of the commenters mention the strength of the Dakin's solution used in the various treatment plans. This is crucial as unless the hypochlorite concentration is below about 0.01% (1/50th of full strength Dakin's) the solution is cytotoxic to fibroblasts. Solutions as weak as 0.005% hypochlorite have been tested and found to be bactericidal but non-toxic to fibroblasts, keratinocytes etc. See https://ceufast.com/course/wound-series-part-2-approaches-to-treating-ch..., which discusses this and provides references (and echoes your comments about wet-to-dry).

You decry the lack of evidence to support use of Dakin's, yet you adopt a sarcastic and fatalistic attitude toward the studies and evidence that do exist.

You say that the fact companies aren't pursuing Dakin's-based therapies is evidence those therapies don't work. It is not. Of course no company is going to devote resources to studying a product that can be made for pennies.

Finally, you approve your friend's arrogant name-calling. I can think of no behavior less likely to improve an institution's practice or patient outcomes.

Thank you for your blog. I have also spent some time searching for evidence based research and studies regarding Dakins which is why I came across your site. The research does seem to show that Dakins is caustic to the tissues and fibroblast at levels of 0.5% or even 0.25%. However, at levels as low as 0.025%, it is not. You stated "experiments by Daufresne showed that below 0.45%, the solution is insufficiently active as a bacteriacide. After reading your blog, I looked up some of the work by Daufresne which seems to be over 100 years old. More recent research shows Dakins to be bacteriacidal at levels even lower than 0.005%. Therefore, it seems there is a much larger window of dilution levels to achieve maximum bacterial death and still stay well below the level that damages the tissue and fibroblast. In addition, acetic acid is well known to be bacteriacidal against pseudomonas but Dakins is documented to work against a much broader spectrum of bacteria. After reviewing the literature, I currently use Dakins 0.0125% on patients with infected or sometimes even non-healing colonized wounds (don't get me started on infection vs. colonization). The company that manufactures Dakins must have read the literature as well because they now dispense bottles of it at this level (0.0125%) with no additional dilution needed. I actually don't use Dakins as a "Magical Panacea" but I will still keep it in my arsenal of wound care products.
David Heath DPM
Cooper City, FL

All I got from your article is that there is insufficient quality research on the matter. It is a logical fallacy to equate "lack of evidence" to "irrefutable evidence against"

REX UNC Wound Care Center in Raleigh NC has asked we use Dakins to clean all 6 of my dads deep ulcers with Santyl as well. Start calling around, because we are looking for out next opinion! Thanks! The article was a hoot!

Worked in a long term acute care wound and ventilator wean hospital. We got the worst of the worst wounds. I have seen 1/16 Dakins Solution w-d dressings done every 12 hours for 2 days completely turn a wound in the right direction (we never did Dakins for more than 2 Days and we didn't have to). This is what our plastic surgeons ordered. The Dakins was reserved for those wounds that responded to nothing else. If you have such a heavy bio-burden in the wound bed, you can do whatever dressing you want and not get anywhere. Dakins is not a panacea, but very effective where appropriate.
I don't remember the studies that our plastic surgeon quoted, but it made perfect sense. The nursing instructor who had her students get the order changed to NS W-D dressings and saw a beautiful pink wound; that was likely because the Dakins cleaned up the wound first. As I have seen this happen many times. Clean up with Dakins then move on to a more appropriate dressing.


Thank you for your comments. I believe that the blog presented the specific science and scientific evidence regarding the Dakins solution. While it is wonderful that you were able to heal the wounds question, your anecdotal experience while it mimics many others, still does not address the basic underlying concepts that Dakin’s was invented to treat wound infection because they had nothing else at that time, something that truly no longer exists at the present time. Actual Dakin solution is a very complicated formula created using a special machine and is highly prone to effects of any exposure to air or light. The true solution lasts a few minutes and must be made fresh each time. The question is always did the wound heal because of what you did or in spite of what you did. My suspicion is that your surgeons have extensive experience with this in contrast to the myriad of advanced wound care products and so they will always go with what they are more comfortable with. Your plastic surgeon in fact did not quote any studies on Dakin’s as they simply do not exist. As I stated int eh blog, Dakin's associate found that the spectrum for successful use was vert narrow and signifcantly limited by many, many factors. There are currently several products on the market that I have different chemical compositions and are used as a substitute for short-term. If they are to tell themselves as evidence based, then it is incumbent upon them to understand and use the scientific evidence and not merely identify that because something healed, they used the most efficacious product. I’m not sure what you mean by”cleaning up the wound” since the promotion of granulation tissue may simply have been due to keeping the wound covered and getting dry. In fact, dressing changes of more than three times a week are actually condemned in the literature since exposing the wound to the air unquestionably impacts the healing and frequent dressing changes disrupt the inrernal mileu. Suffice it to say that ( and with no insult intended) taken solution is unquestionably on evidence-based, substandard care, demonstrates that the users are not well versed in the most modern scientific principles of wound healing, and as I said above, are basing their success on anecdotal recollection versus true scientific evidence. It is something that a true, definitive wound care specialist cannot possibly use and I am confident that there are plenty of wounds that they use it on that are now in the hands of more expert wound care specialist such as myself. I encourage you end them to attend a wound care conference and see the stark differences between modern loan care which is evidence based and what your plastic surgeons and facility are willing to except in its place. I am not sure I would be proud to say that I use treatments that were discovered over 100 years ago and have no scientific bases to support their successful use. If you can find me any studies showing the efficacy, please let me know as I have searched and searched and the only ones are civilian ones.

Respectfully yours,

Dr. MIller okay

Listen Up !!! I am my brothers home caregiver. I have spent this morning boning up on my wound care knowledge for his open wound bedsore (pressure ulcer) which I must take care of daily. Until this morning I did not know that the Dakin's (.0125%) sodium hypochlorite was a BLEACH solution. Point is the hospitals and nursing rehab facilities here in Alabama are using it and sent it home with us for me to continue using. Both for irrigration and to saturate the packing. The fact that it is really just a solution of sterile water and bleech brings to mind a very vivid memory of a terrible experience I had as a child. When I was 6 years old I contracted a "head to foot" case of infantigo from crawling under a house to rescue some puppies. It was a horrible experience. No doctor got me through it. Rather it was my Mother and Grandmother who took control of my care. Their treatement entailed daily bleech baths. They filled the tub with water and and then added a bunch of store bought chlorox bleech. They put me in that wash every day despite my kicking, screaming, and crying. My full body infintago cleared up with no scarring, or lasting health issues before that summer was over in time for me to go to school without a hint of those horrible scabs anywhere on my body. Make of it what you will.

I worked in that same indigent nursing home in Bucks County as an aide prior to nursing school and it scarred me for life. We may have worked there at the same time. I enjoyed your blog

Add new comment

Important Notice: The contents of the website such as text, graphics, images, and other materials contained on the website ("Content") are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The content is not intended to substitute manufacturer instructions. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or product usage. Refer to the Legal Notice for express terms of use.