Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Methicillin-resistant Staph bacteria in surgically treated dogs
By Bergström, A et al.·Published in The Journal of small animal practice·2012·University Animal Hospital·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococci in surgically treated dogs and the environment in a Swedish animal hospital.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 45 dogs that underwent surgery at a veterinary hospital were tested for a type of resistant bacteria called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. While none of the dogs developed infections from this bacteria, more dogs were found to carry it after their hospital stay compared to when they were first admitted. The bacteria were also found in the hospital environment but not in healthy dogs. This suggests that while surgery can lead to dogs carrying resistant bacteria, it did not cause any infections in the dogs treated.
People also search for: dog surgery infection risk · methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in dogs · resistant bacteria in veterinary hospitals
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether hospitalised dogs treated surgically may become culture positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. METHODS: Surgically treated dogs (n=45) were sampled for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on admission, before and after surgery and at the time of removal of surgical stitches. The hospital environment (n=57), including healthy dogs in the veterinary hospital environment (n=34), were sampled for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Genetic variations among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates were identified through detection of restriction fragment polymorphisms. RESULTS: No dogs developed a wound infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. However, there was a significant increase in the number of dogs carrying methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius after hospitalisation compared to admission (P<0·001). No methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from dogs, but was present in the environment. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolates were recovered from environmental surfaces and hospitalised animals, but not from healthy dogs. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolates representing nine different restriction endonuclease digestion patterns were found, with two of these occurring in both the environment and on dogs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dogs may contract methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in association with surgery and hospitalisation. Resistant bacteria may be transmitted between dogs, staff and the environment. Dogs colonised with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius may be a source for hospital- and community-acquired infections.
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/22747733/