Effect of four surgical antisepsis protocols on bacteria counts in felines undergoing routine ovariohysterectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.e358327Keywords:
disinfection, alcohol, felines, bacterial count, ovariohysterectomy, cats, povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, saline solution, disinfection, surgical antisepsis, felines, surgery, ovariohysterectomy, povidone-iodine, saline solution, surgical antisepsis, surgeryAbstract
Background: Endogenous microbial flora is the most frequent cause of contamination of the surgical wound and its subsequent infection. Surgical antisepsis is the control of infection of surgical wounds by reducing microbial contamination. Objective: The main objective of this research was to determine the effect of four surgical antisepsis protocols on bacterial count in felines undergoing routine ovariohysterectomy at different moments: the moment 1 (M1) after trichotomy and before antisepsis, moment 2 (M2) after antisepsis and moment 3 (M3) at the end of the surgical procedure. Methods: Sixty felines, mixed breed, from 5 to 12 months of age, were randomly subjected to 4 surgical antisepsis protocols: 7.5% povidone-iodine soap and rinsing with alcohol 70°, 7.5% povidone-iodine soap and rinsing with saline solution, 2% chlorhexidine soap and rinsing with alcohol 70°, and chlorhexidine soap 2% and rinsing with saline solution. Results: it was demonstrated a mathematical reduction in the number of bacteria in all groups. Regarding the comparison of bacteria growth by protocols evaluated, using the Kruskal Wallis test, no statistically significant differences were found between the protocols studied (p˃0.05). Regarding the comparison of bacteria growth by moments in each protocol (same individuals evaluated at different moments), using the Friedman and Holm test, statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were found between the studied moments: M1M2 p=4.9 -11; M1M3 p=4.9 -11 and M2M3 p=0.039. Conclusions: under the conditions of the present study, any of the 4 protocols have a similar effect on the antisepsis protocol in felines undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Regarding the moments studied, there were differences between the 3 moments studied, with M1 being dissimilar to M2, M1 to M3 and M2 to M3.
Downloads
References
Abraham JL, Morris D, Griffeth GC, Shofer FS, Rankin SC. Surveillance of healthy cats and cats with inflammatory skin disease for colonization of the skin by methicillin-resistance coagulase-positive staphylococci and Staphylococcus schleiferi spp. schleiferi. Vet Dermatol. 2007;18(4):252-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3164.2007.00604.x
Belo L, Serrano I, Cunha E, Carneiro C, Tavares L, Carreira M, Oliveira M. Skin asepsis protocols as a preventive measure of surgical site infections in dogs: chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine. BMC Vet Res. 2018;14(95):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1368-5
Botana LM, Landoni MF, Martín-Jiménez T, editores. Farmacología y terapéutica veterinaria. Madrid: McGraw-Hill Interamericana de España, S.A.U.; 2002. https://www.academia.edu/36952871
Boucher C, Henton M, Kirberger R, Hartman M. Comparative efficacy of three antiseptics as surgical skin preparations in dogs. Vet Surg. 2018;47(6):792-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12913
Fossum TW, Hedlund CS, Hulse DA, Johnson AL. Cirugía en pequeños animales. 3ª ed. Trad. Rubén Ángel Taibo. Buenos Aires (Argentina): Inter-Médica; 2009. https://books.google.es/books?id=48nSDwAAQBAJ
Gibson KL, Donald AW, Hariharah H, McCarville C. Comparison of two pre-surgical skin preparation techniques. Can J Vet Res. 1997;61(2):154-156. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9114967/
Hernández SZ, Negro VB. Fundamentos de la cirugía veterinaria. Buenos Aires (Argentina): BM Press; 2013. https://pdfcoffee.com/fundamentos-de-cirugia-veterinaria-pdf-free.html
Marroquín I. Evaluación del efecto antibacteriano de dos agentes antisépticos en la preparación del área quirúrgica [Tesis de grado]. Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia; 2008. http://www.repositorio.usac.edu.gt/3650/1/Tesis%20Med%20Vet%20Ingrid%20Marroquin%20Ram%C3%ADrez.pdf
Ley Nº 4840 de Protección y Bienestar Animal. Poder Legislativo de la República del Paraguay (28 de enero 2013). https://www.globalanimallaw.org/downloads/database/national/paraguay/par135596.pdf
Rubio M, Boggio JC. Farmacología veterinaria. 2a ed. Córdoba (Argentina): Editorial de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba; 2009. https://redbiblio.unne.edu.ar/pergamo/documento.php?ui=6&recno=86366&id=CABRAL.6.86366
Scott D, Miller W, Griffin G. Dermatología en pequeños animales. 6a ed. Buenos Aires (Argentina): Inter-Médica; 2002. https://catalogo.koha.umich.mx/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=57594
The R Project for Statistical Computing (Internet). The R Foundation; 2023. https://www.R-project.org/
Sánchez L, Sáenz E. Antisépticos y desinfectantes. Dermatología Peruana. 2005;15(2):82-103. https://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bvrevistas/dermatologia/v15_n2/contenido.htm
Slatter D. Tratado de cirugía en pequeños animales. Buenos Aires (Argentina): Inter-Médica; 2006. https://www.intermedica.com.ar/media/mconnect_uploadfiles/s/l/slatter_tratado.pdf
Sumano H, Ocampo L. Farmacología veterinaria. 2ª ed. México (México): Mc Graw-Hill Interamericana, 1997.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors enable RCCP to reprint the material published in it.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions, and will allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
