FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Environmental Occurrence of Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2026; 16(5); 712; doi: 10.3390/ani16050712

Environmental Occurrence of Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria in the Equine Anesthetic Induction and Recovery Box: A Single-Center Study.

Abstract: In horses, surgical site infections (SSIs) are multifactorial complications influenced by patient-related, procedural, and environmental factors. While perioperative contamination has been extensively studied in the operating theater, the anesthetic induction and recovery environment has received limited attention. The aim of this study was to characterize bacterial contamination within an equine anesthetic induction and recovery stall and to evaluate its spatial and temporal distribution. Environmental samples were collected from four predefined locations within the stall at three time points: before patient admission, after recovery from general anesthesia, and after routine cleaning and disinfection. Samples were analyzed using standard aerobic culture techniques, and bacterial species were identified. Bacterial contamination was detected at all sampling locations and time points. Contamination increased significantly after recovery from general anesthesia and was most pronounced in areas associated with moisture retention, such as the groove between floor tiles. The bacterial species identified were predominantly opportunistic environmental organisms. No direct association between environmental contamination and surgical site infections could be established. However, the constant presence of potentially pathogenic bacteria indicates that the anesthetic induction and recovery stall represents a relevant component of the perioperative environment. These findings support the inclusion of the recovery area in infection control strategies aimed at reducing perioperative risk in equine surgical patients.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-02-25 PubMed ID: 41828928PubMed Central: PMC12983972DOI: 10.3390/ani16050712Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study investigated the presence and distribution of potentially pathogenic bacteria in the anesthetic induction and recovery stall used for horses during surgery.
  • It aimed to understand how bacterial contamination varies before, during, and after surgical procedures to improve infection control practices in equine surgery settings.

Background and Importance

  • Horses undergoing surgery can develop surgical site infections (SSIs), which are influenced by various factors including patient health, surgical procedures, and the environment.
  • While operating rooms have been studied extensively for bacterial contamination, less is known about the anesthesia induction and recovery stalls where horses spend critical perioperative time.
  • Recognizing that these areas could contribute to infection risk, this study aimed to fill that knowledge gap by characterizing bacterial presence and distribution in these stalls.

Study Design and Methods

  • Environmental sampling was conducted in a single equine hospital’s anesthetic induction and recovery stall.
  • Four specific locations within the stall were predefined for sample collection to standardize spatial analysis.
  • Samples were taken at three distinct time points:
    • Before a horse was admitted to the stall (baseline contamination).
    • After the horse recovered from general anesthesia (post-procedure contamination).
    • After routine cleaning and disinfection of the stall (effect of cleaning).
  • Standard aerobic culture techniques were used for bacterial isolation.
  • Identified bacteria were genotyped to determine species and potential pathogenicity.

Key Findings

  • Bacterial contamination was found at all sample locations and at every time point, demonstrating persistent environmental bacterial presence.
  • The level of contamination increased significantly after horse recovery, indicating that the presence of animals and surgical procedures contribute to increased bacterial loads.
  • Moist areas, such as grooves between floor tiles, had the highest concentrations of bacteria, suggesting these niches support bacterial growth.
  • The majority of bacteria identified were opportunistic environmental organisms rather than primary pathogens, which can still cause infections under certain conditions.
  • There was no direct evidence linking the environmental bacterial contamination to clinical surgical site infections in horses from this data alone.

Implications and Conclusions

  • The anesthetic induction and recovery stall is a relevant environmental source of potentially pathogenic bacteria in the perioperative period.
  • Current infection control strategies should not only focus on the operating room but also include the recovery environment to reduce overall perioperative infection risk.
  • Routine cleaning and disinfection reduce bacterial contamination but may not completely eliminate bacterial presence, especially in moisture-retentive areas, emphasizing the need for targeted cleaning protocols.
  • Further research could explore specific links between environmental contamination and clinical infections, and test interventions to minimize bacterial loads.

Overall Significance

  • This study contributes to a better understanding of how the environment surrounding equine surgery patients harbors bacteria that could influence infection risk.
  • It encourages veterinary clinics to broaden infection control measures to include anesthetic induction and recovery areas, potentially improving surgical outcomes in horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Rinnovati R, Meistro F, Ralletti MV, D'Angelo P, Spadari A, Zingariello E, Pollera C, Stancampiano L. (2026). Environmental Occurrence of Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria in the Equine Anesthetic Induction and Recovery Box: A Single-Center Study. Animals (Basel), 16(5), 712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16050712

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 16
Issue: 5
PII: 712

Researcher Affiliations

Rinnovati, Riccardo
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.
Meistro, Federica
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.
Ralletti, Maria Virginia
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.
D'Angelo, Paola
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.
Spadari, Alessandro
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.
Zingariello, Edoardo
  • Burren Veterinary Clinic (BurrenVets), Circular Road, Ennistymon, V95 H6XD Co. Clare, Ireland.
Pollera, Claudia
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Milan, Via dell'Università 6, 26900 Lodi, MI, Italy.
Stancampiano, Laura
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, BO, Italy.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. Verwilghen D. Surgical site infections: What do we know?. Equine Vet. J. 2015;47:753–755.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12480pubmed: 26475770google scholar: lookup
  2. Freeman D.E, Hammock P, Baker G.J, Goetz T, Foreman J.H, Schaeffer D.J, Richter R, Inoue O, Magid J.H. Short- and long-term survival and prevalence of postoperative ileus after small intestinal surgery in the horse. Equine Vet. J. 2000;32:42–51.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2000.tb05333.xpubmed: 11202382google scholar: lookup
  3. Turk R, Singh A, Weese J.S. Prospective surgical site infection surveillance in dogs. Vet. Surg. 2015;44:2–8.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12267.xpubmed: 25196800google scholar: lookup
  4. Isgren C.M, Salem S.E, Archer D.C, Worsman F.C, Townsend N.B. Risk factors for surgical site infection following laparotomy: Effect of season and perioperative variables and reporting of bacterial isolates in 287 horses. Equine Vet. J. 2017;49:39–44.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12564pubmed: 26713622google scholar: lookup
  5. Salciccia A, de la Rebière de Pouyade G, Caudron I, Ponthier J, Serteyn D, Sandersen C, Deleuze S, Grulke S. Surgical closure of equine abdomen, prevention, and management of incisional complications. J. Vis. Exp. 2024;207:e65546.
    doi: 10.3791/65546pubmed: 38801261google scholar: lookup
  6. Shearer T.R, Holcombe S.J, Valberg S.J. Incisional infections associated with ventral midline celiotomy in horses. J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care. 2020;30:136–148.
    doi: 10.1111/vec.12936pubmed: 32100465google scholar: lookup
  7. Curtiss A.L, Stefanovski D, Richardson D.W. Surgical site infection associated with equine orthopaedic internal fixation: Incidence, risk factors and outcome. Vet. Surg. 2019;48:685–693.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.13216pubmed: 30993777google scholar: lookup
  8. Griessel T.S, Freeman D.E, Schaeffer D.J. A single-centre retrospective study of surgical site infection following equine colic surgery (2013–2021). Vet. Rec. 2025;196:e5227.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.5227pmc: PMC12082784pubmed: 40123113google scholar: lookup
  9. Isgren C.M, Archer D.C, Salem S.E, Wright I.M, Pinchbeck G.L. Evaluation of a stent dressing and abdominal bandage on surgical site infection following emergency equine laparotomy: A randomised controlled trial. Equine Vet. J. 2025;57:1466–1477.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14482pmc: PMC12508274pubmed: 39967458google scholar: lookup
  10. Loomes K, de Grauw J, Gozalo-Marcilla M, Redondo J.I, Bettschart-Wolfensberger R. A systematic review of the prevalence of post-operative complications after general anesthesia in adult horses (2000–2023). Equine Vet. J. 2025;57:827–861.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14416pubmed: 39449518google scholar: lookup
  11. Sjöberg I, Horn I, Ljungvall K, Andersen P.H, Sternberg-Lewerin S. Influence of antimicrobial prophylaxis in horses undergoing sutured castration. Vet. Surg. 2025;54:872–878.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.14256pmc: PMC12282032pubmed: 40159848google scholar: lookup
  12. Andrade N, Schmiedt C.W, Cornell K, Radlinsky M.G, Heidingsfelder L, Clarke K, Hurley D.J, Hinson W.D. Survey of intraoperative bacterial contamination in dogs undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. Vet. Surg. 2016;45:214–222.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.12438pubmed: 26757033google scholar: lookup
  13. Gobbo J.L, Cardozo M.V, Lacerda L.C.C, Karcher D.E, Dias L.G.G.G, Nardi A.B, Minto B.W, Moraes P.C. Evaluation of operating room environment contamination and efficacy of 2% chlorhexidine for surgical hand scrubbing before and after gowning and gloving. Acta Sci. Vet. 2017;45:1484.
    doi: 10.22456/1679-9216.80500google scholar: lookup
  14. Cremer J, Ross J, Paranjape V. Complications in equine anesthesia. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2025;41:473–493.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2025.08.002pubmed: 41015719google scholar: lookup
  15. Galuppo L.D, Pascoe J.R, Jang S.S, Willits N.H, Greenman S.L. Evaluation of iodophor skin preparation techniques and factors influencing drainage from ventral midline incisions in horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1999;215:963–969.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.1999.215.07.963pubmed: 10511861google scholar: lookup
  16. Román Durá B., Navarro M., Serrano-Rodríguez J.M., Gozalo-Marcilla M. Pre- and intraoperative predictors of recovery quality after general anesthesia in horses. Vet. Sci. 2025;12:262. doi: 10.3390/vetsci12030262.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci12030262pmc: PMC11945850pubmed: 40266986google scholar: lookup
  17. Gozalo-Marcilla M., Ringer S.K. Recovery after general anesthesia in adult horses: A structured summary of the literature. Animals. 2021;11:1777. doi: 10.3390/ani11061777.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061777pmc: PMC8232193pubmed: 34198637google scholar: lookup
  18. Cerullo A., Di Nicola M.R., Scilimati N., Bertoletti A., Pollicino G., Moroni B., Nannarone S., Gialletti R., Passamonti F. Intra- and post-operative bacteriological surveys of surgical site in horses: A single-centre study. Microorganisms. 2025;13:928. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13040928.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13040928pmc: PMC12029434pubmed: 40284764google scholar: lookup
  19. Gandini M., Cerullo A., Giusto G. Pectin–honey hydrogel to prevent laparotomy surgical site infection in horses: A pilot study. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2024;139:105128. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2024.105128.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2024.105128pubmed: 38852926google scholar: lookup
  20. Hoffmann P.N., Williams J., Stacey A., Bennett A.M., Ridgway G.L., Dobson C., Fraser L., Humphreys H. Microbiological commissioning and monitoring of operating theatre suites. J. Hosp. Infect. 2002;52:1–28. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2002.1237.
    doi: 10.1053/jhin.2002.1237pubmed: 12372322google scholar: lookup
  21. Menezes M.P., Borzi M.M., Ruaro M.A., Cardozo M.V., Rabelo R.C., Verbisck N.V., Moraes P.C. Multidrug-resistant bacteria isolated from surgical site of dogs, surgeon’s hands and operating room in a veterinary teaching hospital in Brazil. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2022;49:100638. doi: 10.1016/j.tcam.2022.100638.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tcam.2022.100638pubmed: 35101615google scholar: lookup
  22. Packer M., Devaney J. How to manage infection control in the operating theatre. Vet. Nurse. 2010;1:115–118. doi: 10.12968/vetn.2010.1.2.115.
    doi: 10.12968/vetn.2010.1.2.115google scholar: lookup
  23. Isgren C.M., Salem S.E., Townsend N.B., Timofte D., Maddox T.W., Archer D.C. Sequential bacterial sampling of the midline incision in horses undergoing exploratory laparotomy. Equine Vet. J. 2019;51:38–44. doi: 10.1111/evj.12958.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12958pmc: PMC6585715pubmed: 29679416google scholar: lookup
  24. Hespanha A.C.V., Minto B.W., Cardozo M.V., Menezes M.P.D., Tasso J.B., Moraes P.C. Contamination by antimicrobial-resistant enterobacteria isolated from cell phones and hands in a veterinary hospital. Acta Vet. Hung. 2021;69:216–222. doi: 10.1556/004.2021.00037.
    doi: 10.1556/004.2021.00037pubmed: 34546965google scholar: lookup
  25. Haun N., Hooper-Lane C., Safdar N. Healthcare personnel attire and devices as fomites: A systematic review. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37:1367–1373. doi: 10.1017/ice.2016.192.
    doi: 10.1017/ice.2016.192pubmed: 27609491google scholar: lookup
  26. Kelmer G., Kelmer E., Tatz A.J., Yaroslavsky A., Dahan R., Steinman A. Surgical site infections in horses: A review of risk factors and prevention strategies. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2020;75:3–12.
  27. Verwilghen D.R., Pelosi A., Abbas M., Allerton F., Archer D., Baxter G., Brehm W., Burgess B.A., Dallap-Schaer B., Ferreira J., et al. Surgical site infection definitions consensus: A first step toward improving prevention in veterinary medicine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2025:1–14. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.25.03.0099.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.25.03.0099pubmed: 41406594google scholar: lookup
  28. Alfonso-Sanchez J.L., Martinez I.M., Martín-Moreno J.M., González R.S., Botía F. Analyzing the risk factors influencing surgical site infections: The role of environmental factors. Can. J. Surg. 2017;60:155–161. doi: 10.1503/cjs.017916.
    doi: 10.1503/cjs.017916pmc: PMC5453757pubmed: 28234221google scholar: lookup
  29. Fernández-Bravo A., Figueras M.J. An update on the genus Aeromonas: Taxonomy, epidemiology, and pathogenicity. Microorganisms. 2020;8:129. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8010129.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8010129pmc: PMC7022790pubmed: 31963469google scholar: lookup
  30. Ryan M.P., Adley C.C. Ralstonia spp.: Emerging global opportunistic pathogens. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014;33:291–304. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1975-9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1975-9pubmed: 24057141google scholar: lookup
  31. Ryan M.P., Adley C.C. Sphingomonas paucimobilis: A persistent Gram-negative nosocomial infectious organism. J. Hosp. Infect. 2010;75:153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.03.007.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.03.007pubmed: 20434794google scholar: lookup
  32. Kivisaar M. Narrative of a versatile and adept species Pseudomonas putida. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020;69:324–338. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.001137.
    doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.001137pubmed: 31958045google scholar: lookup
  33. Sartor C., Limouzin-Perotti F., Legré R., Casanova D., Bongrand M., Sambuc R., Drancourt M. Nosocomial infections with Aeromonas hydrophila from leeches. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002;35:e1–e5. doi: 10.1086/340711.
    doi: 10.1086/340711pubmed: 12060892google scholar: lookup
  34. Yoshino Y., Kitazawa T., Kamimura M., Tatsuno K., Ota Y., Yotsuyanagi H. Pseudomonas putida bacteremia in adult patients: Five case reports and a review of the literature. J. Infect. Chemother. 2011;17:278–282. doi: 10.1007/s10156-010-0114-0.
    doi: 10.1007/s10156-010-0114-0pubmed: 20809240google scholar: lookup
  35. Suzuki M., Suzuki S., Matsui M., Hiraki Y., Kawano F., Shibayama K. Genome sequence of a strain of the human pathogenic bacterium Pseudomonas alcaligenes that caused bloodstream infection. Genome Announc. 2013;1:e00919-13. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00919-13.
    doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00919-13pmc: PMC3814577pubmed: 24179116google scholar: lookup
  36. Herrera M.A., Burkitt J.M., Epstein S.E., Jones M.E.B., Moore P.F., Sykes J.E. Ralstonia pickettii septicemia in a dog with immune-mediated thrombocytopenia. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2009;23:182–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0222.x.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0222.xpubmed: 19175738google scholar: lookup
  37. Hassan M., Choi S. Heat tolerance of bacteria isolated from pharmaceutical water systems. Korean J. Microbiol. 2025;61:73–82. doi: 10.7845/KJM.2025.4091.
    doi: 10.7845/KJM.2025.4091google scholar: lookup
  38. Henry P., Russell D., Paterson G., Salavati S., Boag A. Clinical significance of identification of Sphingomonas paucimobilis on bacterial culture in companion dogs and cats. Authorea. 2025 doi: 10.22541/au.175773075.56404328/v1.
    doi: 10.22541/au.175773075.56404328/v1google scholar: lookup
  39. Weber D.J., Anderson D., Rutala W.A. The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2013;26:338–344. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283630f04.
    doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283630f04pubmed: 23743816google scholar: lookup
  40. Vermedal H., Valverde A., Sears W. Effect of anesthesia duration on the quality of recovery in horses undergoing elective and emergency surgeries using the same anesthetic protocol. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2021;85:193–200.
    pmc: PMC8243802pubmed: 34248263
  41. Schroeder E.L. Investigating respiratory disease outbreaks. In: Sprayberry K.A., Robinson N.E., editors. Robinson’s Current Therapy in Equine Medicine. 7th ed. Saunders; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2015. pp. 207–212.
  42. Parlet C.P., Brown M.M., Horswill A.R. Commensal staphylococci influence Staphylococcus aureus skin colonization and disease. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:497–507. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.01.008.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.01.008pmc: PMC7176043pubmed: 30846311google scholar: lookup
  43. Xiong L., Sheng G., Fan Z.M., Yang H., Hwang F.J., Zhu B.W. Environmental design strategies to decrease the risk of nosocomial infection in medical buildings using a hybrid MCDM model. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021;2021:5534607. doi: 10.1155/2021/5534607.
    doi: 10.1155/2021/5534607pmc: PMC8814348pubmed: 35126892google scholar: lookup
  44. Matinpour M., Zettner N., Neumann K., Bäumer L., Burkovski A. Analysis of the Culturable Skin Microbiome of Horses from Southern Germany. Microorganisms. 2025;13:623. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13030623.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13030623pmc: PMC11945438pubmed: 40142516google scholar: lookup
  45. Wesołowska M., Szczuka E. Analysis of Staphylococcal Diversity in the Skin Microbiota of Healthy Riding Horses. Antibiotics. 2025;14:1037. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14101037.
    doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14101037pmc: PMC12561800pubmed: 41148728google scholar: lookup
  46. O’Shaughnessy-Hunter L.C., Yu A., Rousseau J.D., Foster R.A., Weese J.S. Longitudinal study of the cutaneous microbiota of healthy horses. Vet. Dermatol. 2021;32:467-e128. doi: 10.1111/vde.12983.
    doi: 10.1111/vde.12983pubmed: 34165828google scholar: lookup
  47. Cito F., Di Francesco C.E., Averaimo D., Chiaverini A., Alessiani A., Di Domenico M., Cresci M., Rulli M., Cantelmi M.C., Di Bernardo M.D., et al. Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus: Epidemiological and genomic findings of an emerging pathogen in Central Italy. Animals. 2025;15:1351. doi: 10.3390/ani15101351.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15101351pmc: PMC12108151pubmed: 40427230google scholar: lookup
  48. Alsing-Johansson T., Bergström K., Sternberg-Lewerin S., Bergh A., Östlund E., Penell J. Environmental bacterial load during surgical and ultrasound procedures in a Swedish small animal hospital. Acta Vet. Scand. 2024;66:43. doi: 10.1186/s13028-024-00768-4.
    doi: 10.1186/s13028-024-00768-4pmc: PMC11367971pubmed: 39223628google scholar: lookup
  49. Clark A.E., Kaleta E.J., Arora A., Wolk D.M. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry: A fundamental shift in the routine practice of clinical microbiology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013;26:547–603. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00072-12.
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.00072-12pmc: PMC3719498pubmed: 23824373google scholar: lookup
  50. Yang H., Smith R.D., Sumner K.P., Goodlett D.R., Johnson J.K., Ernst R.K. A Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Direct-from-Urine-Specimen Diagnostic for Gram-Negative Pathogens. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022;21:10. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.03730-22.
    doi: 10.1128/spectrum.03730-22pmc: PMC9769899pubmed: 36255333google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,002 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.