FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Microorganisms / Intra- and Post-Operative Bacteriological Surveys of Surgica...
Microorganisms2025; 13(4); doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13040928

Intra- and Post-Operative Bacteriological Surveys of Surgical Site in Horses: A Single-Centre Study.

Abstract: Bacterial contamination of the surgical site in horses is a major risk factor for the development of surgical site infections (SSIs), which increase morbidity, mortality, the hospitalisation period, antibiotic use, and management costs. While contamination is a prerequisite for infection, its progression to clinical infection depends on additional factors that compromise host defences. The present study, conducted at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of the University of Perugia over an 11-month period, investigated bacterial contamination in 70 surgeries (53 clean and 17 clean-contaminated) at the end of the procedure. To exclude pre-existing contamination, a sterile swab was collected after surgical scrub, and only cases that entered surgery with a sterile operative field were considered. A swab, biopsy, and fine-needle aspiration from the wound margins were then performed at the end of the surgery to conduct a qualitative assessment of the bacterial contamination of the surgical sites. Risk factors for surgical field contamination were analysed separately for clean and clean-contaminated procedures. Specifically, for clean-contaminated surgeries, the presence of emergency conditions, surgery duration, and intra-operative complications were evaluated. For clean surgeries, risk factors included the type of operating room, surgical duration, tissue involved, use of local anaesthetics, and placement of surgical drapes. The results revealed bacterial contamination rates of 49.1% in clean surgeries and 41.2% in clean-contaminated surgeries. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequently isolated bacteria, followed by Burkholderia cepacia, Bacillus sp., and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. A statistical analysis showed no significant results on the predictive factors of the contamination evaluated. However, the observed trends suggest the importance of further investigating these risk factors in a larger sample size. These results emphasise the importance of effective prophylactic measures to limit surgical site contamination. Future research will focus on optimising pre-operative and intra-operative prophylaxis strategies to reduce bacterial contamination to sub-pathogenic levels, thereby enhancing post-operative outcomes.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-04-17 PubMed ID: 40284764PubMed Central: PMC12029434DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms13040928Google 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.

The research examines bacterial contamination in surgical sites on horses, considering various risk factors in clean and clean-contaminated surgeries, and its role in the development of infections post-surgery. The findings highlight the significance of preemptive measures to limit this contamination, with no definitive results on predictive factors.

Study Design and Implementation

  • The study was carried out at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of the University of Perugia over 11 months.
  • Observations were made on 70 surgical procedures, distinguished into 53 clean and 17 clean-contaminated surgeries.
  • Pre-existing contamination was excluded by collecting a sterile swab post-surgical scrub. Only surgeries which commenced with a sterile operative field were included in the study.
  • At the end of each surgery, a swab, biopsy, and fine-needle aspiration from wound boundaries were conducted for a qualitative assessment of the bacterial contamination present.

Risk Factors Evaluation

  • The study evaluated different risk factors for contamination in both clean and clean-contaminated surgeries.
  • For clean-contaminated surgeries, factors such as emergency conditions, duration of surgery, and intra-operative complications were assessed.
  • On the other hand, clean surgeries’ risk factors included the location of operating room, duration of surgery, tissue involved, use of local anesthetics, and arrangement of surgical drapes.

Study Findings

  • The results demonstrated rates of bacterial contamination at 49.1% for clean surgeries and 41.2% for clean-contaminated surgeries.
  • Coagulase-negative staphylococci emerged as the most commonly isolated bacteria, followed by other unnamed species.
  • The statistical analysis showed no significant results for the predictive factors of the contamination evaluated, suggesting the requirement of a larger sample size for such analysis.

Future Consideration and Recommendations

  • The study stressed on the importance of effective prophylactic measures to restrict surgical site contamination and improve post-operative outcomes.
  • Further investigations will zero in on refining pre-operative and intra-operative prophylaxis strategies to reduce the bacterial contamination to levels below pathogenic, thus improving post-operative results.

Cite This Article

APA
Cerullo A, Di Nicola MR, Scilimati N, Bertoletti A, Pollicino G, Moroni B, Pepe M, Nannarone S, Gialletti R, Passamonti F. (2025). Intra- and Post-Operative Bacteriological Surveys of Surgical Site in Horses: A Single-Centre Study. Microorganisms, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040928

Publication

Microorganisms
ISSN: 2076-2607
NlmUniqueID: 101625893
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 4

Researcher Affiliations

Cerullo, Anna
  • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via Bologna 148, 10154 Turin, Italy.
Di Nicola, Matteo Riccardo
  • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via Bologna 148, 10154 Turin, Italy.
Scilimati, Nicola
  • Department of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Strada del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Bertoletti, Alice
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, Sport Horse Research Centre, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.
Pollicino, Giuseppe
  • AniCura Istituto Veterinario Novara, Strada Provinciale 9, Granozzo con Monticello, 28060 Novara, Italy.
Moroni, Barbara
  • Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Piemonte, Liguria e Valle d'Aosta, Via Bologna 148, 10154 Turin, Italy.
Pepe, Marco
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, Sport Horse Research Centre, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.
Nannarone, Sara
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, Sport Horse Research Centre, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.
Gialletti, Rodolfo
  • Department of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Strada del Taglio 10, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Passamonti, Fabrizio
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine, Sport Horse Research Centre, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 46 references
  1. Garner J.S., Jarvis W.R., Emori T.G., Horan T.C., Hughes J.M.. CDC Definitions for Nosocomial Infections, 1988.. Am. J. Infect. Control 1988;16:128–140.
    doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90053-3pubmed: 2841893google scholar: lookup
  2. Mangram A.J., Horan T.C., Pearson M.L., Silver L.C., Jarvis W.R.. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999.. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1999;20:247–280.
    doi: 10.1086/501620pubmed: 10219875google scholar: lookup
  3. Owens C.D., Stoessel K.. Surgical Site Infections: Epidemiology, Microbiology and Prevention.. J. Hosp. Infect. 2008;70:3–10.
    doi: 10.1016/S0195-6701(08)60017-1pubmed: 19022115google scholar: lookup
  4. . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Care Associated Infections (HAI) Data and Statistics.. .
  5. Burgess B.A.. Prevention and Surveillance of Surgical Infections: A Review.. Vet. Surg. 2019;48:284–290.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.13176pubmed: 30708396google scholar: lookup
  6. Seidelman J.L., Mantyh C.R., Anderson D.J.. Surgical Site Infection Prevention: A Review.. JAMA 2023;329:244.
    doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.24075pubmed: 36648463google scholar: lookup
  7. Gandini M., Cerullo A., Giusto G.. Scoping Review: Occurrence and Definitions of Postoperative Complications in Equine Colic Surgery.. Equine Vet. J. 2023;55:563–572.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13881pubmed: 36199160google scholar: lookup
  8. Evans H.L.. Overview of the Evaluation and Management of Surgical Site Infection.. .
  9. Herman T., Popwicz P., Bordoni B.. Wound Classification.. StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island, FL, USA: 2025.
    pubmed: 32119343
  10. Stewart S., Richardson D.W.. Surgical Site Infection and the Use of Antimicrobials. Equine Surgery Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2019; pp. 77–103.
  11. Bischofberger A.S., Brauer T., Gugelchuk G., Klohnen A.. Difference in Incisional Complications Following Exploratory Celiotomies Using Antibacterial-coated Suture Material for Subcutaneous Closure: Prospective Randomised Study in 100 Horses.. Equine Vet. J. 2010;42:304–309.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2009.00020.xpubmed: 20525047google scholar: lookup
  12. Torfs S., Levet T., Delesalle C., Dewulf J., Vlaminck L., Pille F., Lefere L., Martens A.. Risk Factors for Incisional Complications after Exploratory Celiotomy in Horses: Do Skin Staples Increase the Risk?: Risk Factors for Celiotomy Incisional Complications in Horses.. Vet. Surg. 2010;39:616–620.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2009.00636.xpubmed: 20636556google scholar: lookup
  13. Colbath A.C., Patipa L., Berghaus R.D., Parks A.H.. The Influence of Suture Pattern on the Incidence of Incisional Drainage Following Exploratory Laparotomy.. Equine Vet. J. 2014;46:156–160.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12091pubmed: 23663132google scholar: lookup
  14. Tnibar A., Grubbe Lin K., Thurøe Nielsen K., Christophersen M.T., Lindegaard C., Martinussen T., Ekstrøm C.T.. Effect of a Stent Bandage on the Likelihood of Incisional Infection Following Exploratory Coeliotomy for Colic in Horses: A Comparative Retrospective Study.. Equine Vet. J. 2013;45:564–569.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12026pubmed: 23294287google scholar: lookup
  15. Isgren C.M., Salem S.E., Archer D.C., Worsman F.C.F., 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
  16. Phillips T.J., Walmsley J.P.. Retrospective Analysis of the Results of 151 Exploratory Laparotomies in Horses with Gastrointestinal Disease.. Equine Vet. J. 1993;25:427–431.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1993.tb02985.xpubmed: 8223375google scholar: lookup
  17. Wilson D.A., Baker G.J., Boero M.J.. Complications of Celiotomy Incisions in Horses.. Vet. Surg. 1995;24:506–514.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.1995.tb01362.xpubmed: 8560746google scholar: lookup
  18. Honnas C.M., Cohen N.D.. Risk Factors for Wound Infection Following Celiotomy in Horses.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1997;210:78–81.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.1997.210.01.78pubmed: 8977653google scholar: lookup
  19. Anderson S.L., Devick I., Bracamonte J.L., Hendrick S., Barber S.M., Carmalt J.L., Wilson D.G.. Occurrence of Incisional Complications After Closure of Equine Celiotomies with USP 7 Polydioxanone.. Vet. Surg. 2015;44:521–526.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12275.xpubmed: 25230697google scholar: lookup
  20. Ingle-Fehr J.E., Baxter G.M., Howard R.D., Trotter G.W., Stashak T.S.. Bacterial Culturing of Ventral Median Celiotomies for Prediction of Postoperative Incisional Complications in Horses.. Vet. Surg. 1997;26:7–13.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.1997.tb01456.xpubmed: 9123817google scholar: lookup
  21. Darnaud S.J.M., Southwood L.L., Aceto H.W., Stefanovski D., Tomassone L., Zarucco L.. Are Horse Age and Incision Length Associated with Surgical Site Infection Following Equine Colic Surgery?. Vet. J. 2016;217:3–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.09.004pubmed: 27810207google scholar: lookup
  22. Costa-Farré C., Prades M., Ribera T., Valero O., Taurà P.. Does Intraoperative Low Arterial Partial Pressure of Oxygen Increase the Risk of Surgical Site Infection Following Emergency Exploratory Laparotomy in Horses?. Vet. J. 2014;200:175–180.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.01.029pubmed: 24582131google scholar: lookup
  23. Kilcoyne I., Dechant J.E., Kass P.H., Nieto J.E.. Evaluation of the Risk of Incisional Infection in Horses Following Application of Protective Dressings after Exploratory Celiotomy for Treatment of Colic.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2019;254:1441–1447.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.254.12.1441pubmed: 31149883google scholar: lookup
  24. Fogle C.. Postoperative Care, Complications, and Reoperation of the Colic Patient. Equine Surgery Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2019; pp. 660–677.
  25. Spadari A., Gialletti R., Gandini M., Valle E., Cerullo A., Cavallini D., Bertoletti A., Rinnovati R., Forni G., Scilimati N.. Short-Term Survival and Postoperative Complications Rates in Horses Undergoing Colic Surgery: A Multicentre Study.. Animals 2023;13:1107.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13061107pmc: PMC10044551pubmed: 36978647google scholar: lookup
  26. 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.2024.105128pubmed: 38852926google scholar: lookup
  27. French N.P., Smith J., Edwards G.B., Proudman C.J.. Equine Surgical Colic: Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications.. Equine Vet. J. 2002;34:444–449.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776117791pubmed: 12358045google scholar: lookup
  28. Mair T.S., Smith L.J.. Survival and Complication Rates in 300 Horses Undergoing Surgical Treatment of Colic. Part 2: Short-Term Complications.. Equine Vet. J. 2005;37:303–309.
    doi: 10.2746/0425164054529364pubmed: 16028617google scholar: lookup
  29. Kelmer G., Paz I., Tatz J.A., Dahan R., Bdolah-Abram T., Oreff L.G.. Factors Associated with Surgical Site Infections in Horses a Retrospective Study.. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2020;75.
  30. Brunsting J.Y., Pille F.J., Oosterlinck M., Haspeslagh M., Wilderjans H.C.. Incidence and Risk Factors of Surgical Site Infection and Septic Arthritis after Elective Arthroscopy in Horses.. Vet. Surg. 2018;47:52–59.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.12699pubmed: 29034493google scholar: lookup
  31. 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
  32. Smith L.J., Mellor D.J., Marr C.M., Reid S.W.J., Mair T.S.. Incisional Complications Following Exploratory Celiotomy: Does an Abdominal Bandage Reduce the Risk?. Equine Vet. J. 2007;39:277–283.
    doi: 10.2746/042516407X193963pubmed: 17520982google scholar: lookup
  33. Rodriguez F., Kramer J., Fales W., Wilson D., Keegan K.. Evaluation of Intraoperative Culture Results as a Predictor for Short-Term Incisional Complications in 49 Horses Undergoing Abdominal Surgery.. Vet. Ther. Res. Appl. Vet. Med. 2009;10:E1–E13.
    pubmed: 20425731
  34. Dziubinski N., Mählmann K., Lübke-Becker A., Lischer C.. Retrospective Identification of Bacterial Isolates from Emergency Laparotomy Surgical Site Infections in Horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020;87:102927.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102927pubmed: 32172917google scholar: lookup
  35. Dohmen P.M.. Antibiotic Resistance in Common Pathogens Reinforces the Need to Minimise Surgical Site Infections.. J. Hosp. Infect. 2008;70:15–20.
    doi: 10.1016/S0195-6701(08)60019-5pubmed: 19022117google scholar: lookup
  36. Orsini J.A., Elce Y.A., Kraus B.. Management of Severely Infected Wounds.. Equine Wound Management Wiley; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2016; pp. 449–475.
  37. McKinney W.. Python for Data Analysis: Data Wrangling with Pandas, NumPy, and Jupyter.. 3rd ed. O’Reilly; Beijing, China: 2022.
  38. Hackett E.S., Embertson R.M., Hopper S.A., Woodie J.B., Ruggles A.J.. Duration of Disease Influences Survival to Discharge of T Horoughbred Mares with Surgically Treated Large Colon Volvulus.. Equine Vet. J. 2015;47:650–654.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12358pubmed: 25257041google scholar: lookup
  39. Parvizi J., Barnes S., Shohat N., Edmiston C.E.. Environment of Care: Is It Time to Reassess Microbial Contamination of the Operating Room Air as a Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty?. Am. J. Infect. Control 2017;45:1267–1272.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.06.027pubmed: 28818359google scholar: lookup
  40. Langvatn H., Schrama J.C., Cao G., Hallan G., Furnes O., Lingaas E., Walenkamp G., Engesæter L.B., Dale H.. Operating Room Ventilation and the Risk of Revision Due to Infection after Total Hip Arthroplasty: Assessment of Validated Data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020;105:216–224.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.010pubmed: 32289383google scholar: lookup
  41. Häfliger E., Atkinson A., Marschall J.. Systematic Review of Healthcare-Associated Burkholderia cepacia Complex Outbreaks: Presentation, Causes and Outbreak Control.. Infect. Prev. Pract. 2020;2:100082.
    doi: 10.1016/j.infpip.2020.100082pmc: PMC8335909pubmed: 34368718google scholar: lookup
  42. Miryala R., Marathe N., Mallepally A.R., Das K., Mohapatra B.. Iatrogenic Postoperative Spondylodiscitis Attributed to Burkholderia cepacia Infection in an Immunocompetent Patient.. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2021;12:138.
    doi: 10.25259/SNI_518_2020pmc: PMC8088530pubmed: 33948309google scholar: lookup
  43. Cain C.L., Cole S.D., Bradley Ii C.W., Canfield M.S., Mauldin E.A.. Clinical and Histopathological Features of Burkholderia cepacia Complex Dermatitis in Dogs: A Series of Four Cases.. Vet. Dermatol. 2018;29:457.
    doi: 10.1111/vde.12677pubmed: 30109733google scholar: lookup
  44. Geiger A.M., Hogardt M., Heesemann J.. Burkholderia/Stenotrophomonas.. Contributions to Microbiology Volume 8. KARGER; Basel, Switzerland: 2001; pp. 20–34.
    pubmed: 11764736
  45. O’Brien C.R., Sykes J.E.. Greene’s Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat.. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2021; pp. 948–959.
  46. Hsieh C.-T., Hsu S.-K., Chang C.-J.. Thoracic Vertebral Osteomyelitis Caused by Burkholderia cepacia in an Immunocompetent Adult.. Surg. Infect. 2013;14:476–479.
    doi: 10.1089/sur.2012.025pubmed: 23859689google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.