Anyone here have experience with Neurontin (Pregabalin)?

 romeotuma wrote: 
"Garage" prolly doesn't sound appropriate.

 romeotuma wrote: 

it sounds more reassuring than "guess work."

 DaveInVA wrote: 

 romeotuma wrote: 
Because they still haven't gotten it right....

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I'm thinking new scratch -> clean and vaseline
red irritated wound -> clean and antibiotic

but I'm still trying to read up 

 dmax wrote: 
So, the doc's advice to scrub the cut with soap & water, then apply vaseline... might be midway betw. these two scenarios? Or is that still a "minor contaminated wound"?
 
This sounds like a classic example of "a little information is a dangerous thing."

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I Do know by experience that if a cat jumps into an open bucket of used oil that go-jo works!

 dmax wrote: 
Vaseline ... a miracle product.

Hey! That's not what I meant... 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I don't like to act on anecdotes, so I did a quick lookup, and here's something that supports the petrolatum-only approach. Thanks for the pointer! I'll keep looking.

"Comment: White petrolatum appears to be a safe and much less costly alternative to bacitracin ointment. There seems to be no significant increase in wound infections with petrolatum, and the risk of allergic contact dermatitis is eliminated. Bacitracin selects for Gram-negative organisms, which can cause infections that may require more expensive antibiotics to treat than S. aureus infections"

——

more, being more specific:
"The use of topical triple-antibiotic ointments significantly decreases infection rates in minor contaminated wounds compared with a petrolatum control. Plain petrolatum ointment is equivalent to triple-antibiotic ointments for sterile wounds as a post-procedure wound dressing (strength of recommendation : A, based on randomized controlled trials )."

 dmax wrote: 
All of these, bacitracin/sporin whatever... the most/only useful ingredient is Vaseline. Scrub the cut with soap and water, then smear some vaseline on it to keep out dirt. Tra la. So says my skin doc.

 Umberdog wrote: 
Big studies that compare "leave it open" to "ointment and a bandage" show that "ointment and a bandage" does better in terms of rate of healing and scarring.

Dry skin is dead.
Moist skin is alive and able to regenerate.

Makes sense that - as long as it's not the evil neomycin - ointment and a bandage is generally the best approach to wounds. 

 dmax wrote: 
I'm a diabetic and have to keep a close watch on my feet. About five years ago I got a blister atop my left foot and it broke open. The doctors started me on Neosporin and antibiotics. Just as you said it got irritated and the sore got bigger and bigger. I swore off the drugs and wound therapy (Neosporin, soaking, and debriding) and after about two months of messing with it the wound healed in a few days. I've had similar sores since and find that letting them do their thing works best. I just keep a close watch they they don't get too "angry." They usually scab over and dry up.

This is just MY experience. I'm not recommending anyone else do this without talking it over with your doctor. 

 cc_rider wrote: 
I live to serve.

Depends on if it's my dog or not. 

 dmax wrote:
 
Thank you, Doc. Confirms what I've suspected for some time.

I bet you'd make exceptions about the dog fur, too.

Oh, and here's something to know:

Neomycin/Neosporin is the devil.

in about 5-10% of people, it irritates the skin, and it gets red and a little swollen. So people think it's getting infected.
I better put on more Neosporin!

so it gets redder. And they go to a doc who doesn't think about the reaction
Take these antibiotics and keep on with the topical Neosporin.

and, because it's not infectious, but irritant, it keeps getting worse
Not responding to antibiotics? You must have the flesh-eating bacteria! Everybody panic!!

I never ever use the stuff.
Use bacitracin or polymyxin/Polysporin instead.
And that triple antibiotic ointment has neomycin in it too. Keep away.
 

 meower wrote: 
My ears were burning.

There are, genetically, two versions: hospital-associated MRSA (methicillin resistant staph aureus) which is the killer (and we're talking in generalities). You see it in people that are hospitalized, with large lines put in them, compromised immune systems, or other significant illnesses. It's so difficult to treat that it requires IV Vancomycin. Oral meds won't work.

Then there's community-associated MRSA, which is what's everywhere. Where I live it's ubiquitous. Every single person that I see with a skin infection or abscess, I presume to be MRSA, and we're almost always right. It's genetically different than the hospital-associated strain, and it typically responds to oral meds, like Septra (a sulfa drug). It does not respond to Keflex/cephalexin or dicloxacillin, so if a doc starts you on that, you don't improve.

It's infectious by contact, so kids tend to pass it around, but apparently folks get it without obvious contact with someone sick. It's commonly confused with a "spider bite" because it starts abruptly, swiftly, and folks want an answer as to why it began. But biopsies find no bug venom. It's the nature of MRSA.

There are lots of discussions about how to "sterilize" the environment. I think it's a flail. It's too ubiquitous. And those damned Purell people are making it worse. The constant hand-washing kills off the competitive, less aggressive bacteria and leaves the more aggressive, resistant bacteria behind.

So, I suppose you could hold back the kid, but I'd never expect the other child to stop being a MRSA issue. Some people just have it, and some don't. Some carry it in their nostrils and when they pick their nose, they re-inoculate their fingernails and then can spread it by touch - but they, themselves, aren't sick. They're carriers.

Me, I even eat food that falls on the floor, if it's not covered in dog fur. I think we only make ourselves healthy by allowing our body to engage in the environment. I wouldn't have my kid play with someone with weeping sores or draining abscesses, but if they're currently otherwise OK, then I'd say go for it. 

 meower wrote: 
He could call his local health department - it doesn't have to be his pediatrician.  Of course depends on how big his town is, but he could call one in the closest big city.  Cities take this seriously - they don't want an epidemic.

Also to consider:  Does his insurance have a 24 hour nursing hot line.  Most do these days.  Suggest he call the number on the back of his insurance card.

 meower wrote: 
PM dmax, he's on the boards.

Mersa is highly contagious and can be deadly.  That whole house is going to have to be disinfected eventually.  There are hygene issues present as well if this is an ongoing thing.

 kurtster wrote: 

I'm not going over there!  The question is whether he should let his son over there this weekend.  I thought not, and have sent an email to a couple of pediatricians here, but still havent heard.  it's a pretty contentious divorce/custody thing, so, it does matter if we say the kid can't go.  Would prefer to have some doctor's advice.

DR DMAX!