Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Best skin disinfectants for dogs before spay surgery compared
By Lambrechts, Nicolaas E et al.·Published in Veterinary surgery : VS·2004·Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: A prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study involving 121 dogs undergoing spaying (ovariohysterectomy) tested three different skin disinfectants to see which was best at reducing bacteria before surgery. The disinfectants included a glutaraldehyde solution mixed with alcohol, a glutaraldehyde solution mixed with water, and a chlorhexidine solution. All three options were effective at significantly lowering bacterial counts on the skin, with no infections reported after surgery and only a few mild skin reactions noted. This suggests that any of these disinfectants are safe and effective choices for preparing dogs for surgery.
People also search for: dog spay surgery disinfectant · skin antiseptic for dogs · chlorhexidine for dog surgery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded clinical study. ANIMALS: One hundred and twenty-one dogs. METHODS: Cutaneous bacterial colony forming units (CFU) from the perioperative site after skin preparation, after antisepsis, and after surgery (incisional and paramedian), were quantified. The influence of high initial bacterial counts (> or =150 CFU) and surgical time on antibacterial efficacy was examined and the proportion of dogs from which Staphylococcus intermedius was cultured, determined. Perioperative skin reactions and wound infections were documented. RESULTS: All 3 antiseptic solutions significantly and equally reduced CFU to all post-antisepsis sampling levels irrespective of surgical duration (mean surgical times 151.6, 136.2, and 149.6 minutes for CG+A, SG+A and SG+W, respectively). Median percentage reductions in CFU ranged between 99.3% and 100%. In dogs with initial high counts and disinfected with CG+A and SG+W, the incisional samples had significantly higher counts than the post-antisepsis samples. In the CG+A and SG+W groups, the proportion of post-surgery samples yielding S. intermedius was significantly higher at the incisional than the paramedian sites. Eight mild cutaneous reactions were recorded in equal proportions for the 3 solutions. There were no recorded infections. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 preparations had an equal ability to reduce and maintain low CFU counts, with minimal cutaneous reactions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SG solutions are safe and effective preoperative skin antiseptics for elective clean-contaminated surgical procedures.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15659020/