PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Best skin cleaning for preventing dog surgery infections

By Belo, Luís et al.·Published in BMC veterinary research·2018·Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA) / Faculty of Veterinary Medicine·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Skin asepsis protocols as a preventive measure of surgical site infections in dogs: chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine.

Species:
dog
Skin & coatDogs

Plain-English summary

A group of dogs undergoing surgery had their skin cleaned with either a povidone-iodine solution or a chlorhexidine solution to prevent infections. After the cleaning, most dogs showed no bacterial growth on their skin, indicating that both cleaning methods were effective. There was no significant difference in how well each method worked, as both reduced bacteria effectively. This means that either cleaning solution can be used to help keep dogs safe from infections during surgery.

People also search for: dog surgery infection prevention · povidone-iodine vs chlorhexidine for dogs · how to prevent surgical site infections in dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most of surgical site infections (SSI) are caused by commensal and pathogenic agents from the patient's microbiota, which may include antibiotic resistant strains. Pre-surgical asepsis of the skin is one of the preventive measures performed to reduce SSI incidence and also antibiotic resistance dissemination. However, in veterinary medicine there is no agreement on which biocide is the most effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two pre-surgical skin asepsis protocols in dogs. A total of 46 animals were randomly assigned for an asepsis protocol with an aqueous solution of 7.5% povidone-iodine or with an alcoholic solution of 2% chlorhexidine. For each dog, two skin swab samples were collected at pre-asepsis and post-asepsis, for bacterial quantification by conventional techniques and isolation of methicillin-resistant species. RESULTS: Most samples collected at the post-asepsis did not present bacterial growth, both for the animals subjected to the povidone-iodine (74%) or to the chlorhexidine (70%) protocols. In only 9% of the cases a significant bacterial logarithmic reduction was not observed, indicating possible resistance to these agents. Also, the logarithmic reduction of the bacterial quantification from pre- and post-asepsis time, was not statistically different for povidone-iodine (6.51 ± 1.94 log10) and chlorhexidine (6.46 ± 2.62 log10) protocol. From the 39% pre-asepsis swabs which showed bacterial growth in MRSA modified chromogenic agar medium, only one isolate was identified as Staphylococcus aureus and one as S. epidermidis. False positives were mainly other staphylococci species, as well as Enterobacteriaceae. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-surgical skin asepsis protocols with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine showed similar efficacy in the elimination of methicillin resistant bacteria and preventing surgical site infections in dogs undergoing surgery.

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/29540169/