Prospective evaluation of the prevalence of conjunctival and intraocular bacteria in dogs undergoing phacoemulsification following a standardized aseptic preparation with 0.5% povidone iodine

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate bacterial contamination of conjunctiva and aqueous humor in dogs undergoing phacoemulsification following asepsis with 0.5% povidone iodine and determine the influence of intravenous antibiotics on outcome of contamination. Methods Client‐owned dogs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a control group, receiving 22 mg/kg intravenous cefazolin at induction prior to sampling, or experimental group receiving no antibiotic prior to sampling, masked to the surgeon. Dogs receiving antimicrobials in the pre‐operative period were excluded. Asepsis was performed on all operated eyes using 0.5% iodine with minimum 3 min contact time at induction of anesthesia and repeated before surgery. A conjunctival swab and aqueous humor sample were collected prior to incision and following incision closure, respectively. Samples were submitted for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial culture and susceptibility. Results Seventy‐one eyes of 42 dogs were included. Median age was 9 years. Thirty‐nine and 32/71 eyes received intravenous cefazolin and no antibiotic, respectively. Median procedure time was 40 min per eye. Conjunctival cultures were positive in 6 eyes (8.5%): Serratia marcescens (5 eyes) and Cutibacterium acnes (1 eye). Aqueous humor cultures were positive in 5 eyes (7.0%): S. marcescens (2 eyes), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2 eyes), Staphylococcus pseudointermedius (1 eye). Prevalence of positive culture did not differ between groups (p = .74), order of eyes for bilateral procedures (p = .74) and diabetic status (p = 1). Conclusions Bacterial contamination of the conjunctiva and aqueous humor was present in 8.5% and 7.0% of dogs undergoing phacoemulsification after asepsis. Lack of IV cefazolin was not significantly associated with positive culture.

Bacterial endophthalmitis caused by Serratia sp. nov. In rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

“…In addition to these, there are also studies that indicate natural infection and disease caused by the genus Serratia in other species, namely: birds (MÜLLER et al, 1986;POETA et al, 2016;KASHASH et al, 2022), cats (HOHENHAUS et al, 1997KELLY et al, 2015;GUYONNET et al, 2019), dogs (FRANKE;Richert, 1944;Wilkins, 1973;PLAVEC et al, 2008;PEREZ et al, 2011;COALL et al, 2022;FRANCHINI et al, 2022), cattle (BARNUM et al, 1958Nicholls et al, 1981;ISAKSSON;Holmberg, 1984;BOWMAN et al, 1986;WILSON et al , 1990;Todhunter et al, 1991;RUEGG et al, 1992;Kamarudin et al, 1996;DI GUARDO et al, 1997;Schukken et al, 2012;FRIMAN et al, 2019), mollusks (MÜLLER et al, 1995), turtles (HALL et al, 2022 and other reptiles, amphibians and fish (CLAUSEN; DURAN-REYNALS, 1937).…”

Bacterial endoftalmitis caused by Serratia sp. in a bunny (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

“…In addition to these, there are also studies that point to natural infection and disease caused by the genus Serratia in other species, namely: birds (MÜLLER et al, 1986;POETA et al, 2016;KASHASH et al, 2022), cats (HOHENHAUS et al, 1997KELLY et al, 2015;GUYONNET et al, 2019), dogs (FRANKE;RICHERT, 1944;WILKINS, 1973;PLAVEC et al, 2008;PEREZ et al, 2011;COALL et al, 2022;FRANCHINI et al, 2022), cattle (BARNUM et al, 1958;NICHOLLS et al, 1981;ISAKSSON;HOLMBERG, 1984;BOWMAN et al, 1986;WILSON et al 1990;TODHUNTER et al, 1991;RUEGG et al, 1992;KAMARUDIN et al, 1996;DI GUARDO et al, 1997;SCHUKKEN et al, 2012;FRIMAN et al, 2019), molluscs (MÜLLER et al, 1995, turtles (HALL et al, 2022) and other reptiles, amphibians and fish (CLAUSEN; DURAN-REYNALS, 1937).…”

Serratia marcescens‐associated subcutaneous abscess in a dog

“…S. marcescens is commonly involved in hospital‐acquired infections in humans, and nosocomial infections have also been reported in veterinary medicine (Keck et al., 2020 ). Endocarditis, conjunctivitis, urogenital infection and systemic infection including septicaemia have been reported in dogs; however, cutaneous infection has not been reported (Armstrong, 1984 ; Coall et al., 2022 ; Loncaric et al., 2020 ; Perez et al., 2011 ; Wilkins, 1973 ). To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first case report that describes S. marcescens ‐associated cutaneous infection in a dog.…”