Comparative efficacy of three antiseptics as surgical skin preparations in dogs

Abstract

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.

Influence of clipping on bacterial contamination of canine arthrocentesis sites before and after skin preparation

“…Bacterial counts before skin preparation in this study were similar to or higher than those found in other canine studies, although different preparation solutions were used 12,13,28,35 . Bacterial reduction was not always complete.…”

“…Bacterial reduction was not always complete. Similar results have been observed in canine studies in which different preparation techniques were compared 12,28‐30,35 . We used a moist swab placed on the skin and rotated with firm pressure in contrast to the impression technique in which culture plates are gently pressed directly onto the skin.…”

“…The swab method is considered more appropriate for uneven surfaces, which is why it was used in our study 37,38 . Differences in anatomical location and methodology make direct comparisons between our study and other canine studies difficult 12,13,28 because, in those other studies, larger sites on the trunk were cultured in a surgical setting by using surgical caps, masks, and (in two studies), surgical drapes 12,13,28 …”

“…The most common bacterial flora of canine skin are various Staphylococcus spp, Micrococcus spp, and Corynebacterium spp 12‐15 . In clinical cases of canine septic arthritis, the route of infection is hematogenous or by direct penetration of joints through surgery or trauma 11,16‐18 .…”

Incidence of Bacteremia Consequent to Different Endoscopic Procedures in Dogs: A Preliminary Study

“…To position the intravenous catheter, the hair above the cephalic vein was removed. Subsequently, the skin was disinfected with three alternating passages of 4% chlorhexidine and denatured ethyl alcohol 70% (each left on for 30 s), following the main indications for skin antisepsis [18,19]. Once the area was ready, the intravenous catheter was positioned with the operator wearing sterile gloves.…”