Comparative efficacy of three antiseptics as surgical skin preparations in dogs

Objective To compare the antimicrobial efficacy of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% ethanol solution (CG+A) with that of F10 Skin Prep Solution (F10) and electrochemically activated water (EAW) when used as a surgical preparation in canine patients. Study design Prospective randomized clinical s...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Veterinary surgery Ročník 47; číslo 6; s. 792 - 801
Hlavní autoři: Boucher, Charles, Henton, Maryke M., Becker, Piet J., Kirberger, Robert M., Hartman, Marthinus J.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.08.2018
Témata:
Animals
Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use
antimicrobial properties
Antiseptics
bacterial contamination
Chlorhexidine
Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives
Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use
Colonization
Contamination
Counting
Dogs
Dogs - surgery
electrochemistry
Ethanol
Ethanol - therapeutic use
Female
gluconates
Hysterectomy - methods
Hysterectomy - veterinary
Ovariectomy - methods
Ovariectomy - veterinary
patients
Population studies
Preoperative Care - methods
Preoperative Care - veterinary
Prospective Studies
Random Allocation
randomized clinical trials
Replication
Sampling
Skin
Skin - microbiology
Skin preparations
spaying
students
Surgery
ISSN:0161-3499, 1532-950X, 1532-950X
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Objective To compare the antimicrobial efficacy of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% ethanol solution (CG+A) with that of F10 Skin Prep Solution (F10) and electrochemically activated water (EAW) when used as a surgical preparation in canine patients. Study design Prospective randomized clinical study. Sample population One hundred sixteen dogs presented for ovariohysterectomy. Methods Dogs were randomly divided into 1 of the 3 antiseptic groups (CG+A, F10, EAW). Skin samples with replicating organism detection and counting plates were taken at 4 different perioperative sites and time intervals (postskin preparation, postskin antisepsis, 2 hours after the second sample, and at the end of surgery) during ovariohysterectomies performed by students. The colony forming unit (CFU) counts from each sample were quantified according to the level of bacterial contamination. Zero CFU was defined as no contamination, 1‐12 CFU was defined as low contamination, and greater than 12 CFU was defined as high contamination. The 3 antiseptics were compared with respect to the level of contamination. Results There was no difference in the level of colonization between the antiseptics at the first sampling time (P = .454). However, the level of contamination for CG+A was lower compared with F10 and EAW at the second, third, and fourth sampling times (P =  .001, P =  .01, P =  .02, respectively). Conclusion CG+A was more effective at achieving a zero CFU count and low levels of contamination compared with F10 and EAW for surgical preparation in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Clinical significance This study does not provide evidence to support the use of F10 and EAW instead of CG+A for the surgical skin preparation of dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Bibliografie:Funding information
South African Veterinary Foundation; National Research Fund of Prof Robert Kirberger; Companion Animal Clinical Studies Research Fund of the University of Pretoria
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Undefined-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-3
ISSN:0161-3499
1532-950X
1532-950X
DOI:10.1111/vsu.12913