Premium
Comparison of Two Surgical Site Protocols for Cattle in a Field Setting
Author(s) -
Bourel Clara,
Buczinski Sébastien,
Desrochers André,
Harvey Denis
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
veterinary surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.652
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1532-950X
pISSN - 0161-3499
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2013.01089.x
Subject(s) - medicine , chlorhexidine , surgery , laparotomy , antiseptic , chlorhexidine gluconate , perforation , isopropyl alcohol , asepsis , anesthesia , dentistry , chemistry , materials science , organic chemistry , pathology , punching , metallurgy
Objective To compare 2 preoperative surgical site protocols for standing laparotomy in cattle in a field setting. Study Design Cohort study. Animals Dairy cows (n = 73) undergoing a clean standing laparotomy (no visceral perforation during surgery). Methods Cows were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 preoperative skin‐preparations protocols with chlorhexidine used as an antiseptic. A standard protocol (3 minutes [min] cleansing scrub, tap water rinse, 3 minutes surgical scrub with a sterile one‐use chlorhexidine scrub and alternate passage of alcohol and 2% chlorhexidine solution (7 minutes; n = 32) was compared with a 3 minutes abbreviated preoperative protocol, consisting of two 90 seconds period of cleansing scrub and 3 passages of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% in isopropyl alcohol solution (4 minutes; n = 32). Pre‐ and postoperative skin bacterial counts and clinical assessment of wounds 10–15 days after surgery, as well as standardized interview with the producers focused on wound infection 30 days after the surgery were used to compare both protocols. Results There was no difference between protocols for absolute colony forming units (CFU) and percentage CFU reduction perioperatively as well as for surgical wound clinical score 10–15 days after the surgery. The infection rate at 30 days was 10.5% (6/57) but no significant difference was observed between protocols 10% (3/30) versus 11.5% (3/27). Conclusions An abbreviated preoperative protocol using nonsterile reusable material can be as effective as a standard protocol using sterile one‐use brush in reducing skin microflora and preventing surgical wound infection.