Prospective, randomised clinical trial of four different presurgical hand antiseptic techniques in equine surgery.
Abstract: Currently, the World Health Organization recommends the use of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABR) for surgical hand preparation in human surgery. When disinfecting soaps are used, a rubbing technique causes less skin irritation than brush scrubbing. Based on a recent survey, most equine surgeons still use disinfecting soap. The efficacy of scrubbing vs. rubbing and the use of sole ABR compared with chlorhexidine (CHx)- based products has not been evaluated in the equine surgical setting. Objective: To compare four surgical hand antisepsis techniques in equine surgery for reduction of aerobic bacterial counts from pre- to post-preparation (immediate efficacy) and at the end of surgery (sustained efficacy). Methods: Randomised, prospective clinical trial. Methods: A 4% CHx-based product applied with either a scrub or rub technique, one sole ABR (ET; 80% ethanol) and one CHx/alcohol-combination (CHx/ET; 1% CHx and 61% ethanol) product both applied with a rub technique were evaluated. Samples were collected by glove juice technique and cultured on 3M™ Petrifilm plates and counted using a 3M™ Petrifilm plate reader. Results: Immediate mean bacterial log colony forming unit (CFU) reduction was 2.4 for CHx-scrub, 2.8 for CHx-rub, 3.1 for CHx/ET and 2.1 for ET. CHx/ET resulted in significantly lower bacterial counts than CHx-scrub (P<0.005) and ET (P<0.001) while CHx-rub resulted in significantly lower counts than ET (P<0.001). At the end of surgery bacterial counts were the lowest for CHx-rub, significantly lower than CHx/ET (P<0.001) and ET (P<0.001). There was no difference between CHx-rub and -scrub techniques (P = 0.7). Conclusions: Bacterial counts were used as the outcome measure rather than prevalence of surgical site infection, and the effect of hand preparation on skin health was not assessed. Conclusions: ABR did not decrease bacterial log CFU counts more effectively than CHx products. When using CHx soaps in the equine setting, hand-rub is as effective as a hand-scrub-technique.
© 2018 EVJ Ltd.
Publication Date: 2019-02-13 PubMed ID: 30565715DOI: 10.1111/evj.13060Google 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.
- Journal Article
- Randomized Controlled Trial
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 article is about a clinical trial comparing four different techniques of hand antisepsis, focusing on its immediate and sustained efficacy in equine surgery.
Objective of the Research
- The main goal was to compare four hand antisepsis techniques for their ability to reduce aerobic bacterial counts.
- These techniques were evaluated based on their immediate efficacy (reduction from pre- to post-preparation) and their sustained efficacy (at the end of surgery).
Methods
- The research was a randomised, prospective clinical trial.
- Researchers tested four different techniques: a 4% chlorhexidine (CHx)-based product applied with a scrub or rub technique, an alcohol-based rub (ABR) composed of 80% ethanol (ET), and a CHx/alcohol combination product consisting of 1% CHx and 61% ethanol, with both of the last two techniques being applied using a rubbing method.
- Samples were collected using the glove juice technique and subjected to culture on 3M™ Petrifilm plates, with counts being registered via a 3M™ Petrifilm plate reader.
Results
- Immediate mean bacterial count reduction (measured in log colony forming units, CFU) for the four techniques were: 2.4 for CHx-scrub, 2.8 for CHx-rub, 3.1 for CHx/ET, and 2.1 for ET.
- CHx/ET resulted in significantly lower bacterial counts than both CHx-scrub and ET.
- CHx-rub led to significantly lower counts than ET.
- At the end of surgery, CHx-rub had the lowest bacterial counts, significantly lower than CHx/ET and ET.
- No significant difference was found between the CHx-rub and -scrub techniques.
Conclusions
- The study used bacterial counts as the outcome measure. The impact of hand preparation on skin health was not assessed, nor was surgical site infection prevalence.
- Alcohol-based rub did not decrease bacterial log CFU counts more effectively than chlorhexidine (CHx)-based products.
- When using CHx soaps in equine surgery, the hand-rub technique is as effective as the hand-scrub technique.
Cite This Article
APA
Biermann NM, McClure JT, Sanchez J, Saab M, Doyle AJ.
(2019).
Prospective, randomised clinical trial of four different presurgical hand antiseptic techniques in equine surgery.
Equine Vet J, 51(5), 600-605.
https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13060 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
- Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
- Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
- Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
- Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Anti-Infective Agents, Local
- Bacteria, Aerobic / drug effects
- Chlorhexidine / pharmacology
- Ethanol
- Hand Hygiene / methods
- Hand Sanitizers
- Horse Diseases / prevention & control
- Horses
- Humans
- Preoperative Period
- Prospective Studies
- Veterinarians
Grant Funding
- Boerhinger Ingelheim 2014, Advancement in Equine Research Award
- Atlantic Veterinary College Internal Research Fund
Citations
This article has been cited 3 times.- Gruber JV, Riemer J. Examining Skin Recovery After a 3% Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide (H(2)O(2)) Treatment Using ATP Biofluorescence.. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2022;15:929-937.
- Rocktäschel T, Renner-Martin K, Cuny C, Brehm W, Truyen U, Speck S. Surgical hand preparation in an equine hospital: Comparison of general practice with a standardised protocol and characterisation of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus recovered.. PLoS One 2020;15(12):e0242961.
- Crosa AT, Katzman SA, Kelleher ME, Nieto JE, Kilcoyne I, Dechant JE. Incidence of incisional complications after exploratory celiotomy in equids affected with enterolithiasis.. Can Vet J 2020 Oct;61(10):1085-1091.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists