Efficacy of Mechanical versus Non-Mechanical Sterile Preoperative Skin Preparation With Chlorhexidine Gluconate 4% Solution.
- Journal Article
- Randomized Controlled Trial
Summary
This study investigates whether there’s a significant difference in the efficacy of sterilizing surgical sites on horses through either mechanical or non-mechanical methods with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% solution. The results show that while both methods effectively reduce bacteria, no significant difference was found between the two methods.
Study Methods
In breaking down the research, let’s start with the methods. The experiment used:
- Thirty healthy adult Thoroughbred horses as subjects.
- The horses were prepared for a simulated surgical operation on the left and right upper thighs using either mechanical or non-mechanical preparation, which was randomly assigned.
- Samples from the prepared sites were cultivated for bacteria after each stage. In analyzing the results, they used ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) which is a statistical test used to compare the means of different groups to determine if they are significantly different from each other.
Study Results
The results of this research might potentially impact surgical procedures in clinics or hospitals. They revealed that:
- Both the mechanical and non-mechanical methods significantly reduced bacteria detected from surface swab samples. This implies that the chlorhexidine gluconate 4% solution, used in both preparation methods, is effective in reducing bacteria on the skin in preparation for surgery.
- There was no notable difference in the amount of skin-related bacteria found between the mechanical and non-mechanical preoperative sterile methods.
- Finally, a broad array of bacteria species were identified post-procedure using 16s PCR, a commonly used tool in bacterial profiling. Given such a variety, it is clear that the process was indeed reducing bacterial numbers.
Study Conclusion
The study concluded that chlorhexidine gluconate 4% solution is effective in reducing bacterial counts within a total contact time of 225 seconds, with or without repeated mechanical scrubbing. This means the non-mechanical method, without scrubbing, should also be considered a viable preoperative preparation technique.
Cite This Article
Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
- College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
- Department of Microbiology and Cell Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
MeSH Terms
- Administration, Cutaneous
- Animals
- Anti-Infective Agents, Local / administration & dosage
- Antisepsis
- Biomechanical Phenomena
- Chlorhexidine / administration & dosage
- Chlorhexidine / analogs & derivatives
- Female
- Hindlimb
- Horse Diseases / surgery
- Horses
- Male
- Preoperative Care / methods
- Preoperative Care / veterinary
- Surgical Wound Infection / prevention & control
- Surgical Wound Infection / veterinary
- Treatment Outcome
Citations
This article has been cited 2 times.- Green RD, Potterton DB, Winterborn AN. The Use of Waterless Alcohol-based Antiseptic for Surgical Skin Preparation in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta).. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2022 Nov 1;61(6):678-682.
- Horstmann Risso N, Ottonelli Stopiglia CD, Oliveira MT, Haas SE, Ramos Maciel T, Reginatto Lazzari N, Kelmer EL, Pinto Vilela JA, Beckmann DV. Chlorhexidine Nanoemulsion: A New Antiseptic Formulation.. Int J Nanomedicine 2020;15:6935-6944.