含醇葡萄糖酸氯己定与含Tris-EDTA的聚六亚甲基双胍作为犬术前皮肤准备防腐液的比较评价。

IF 1.7 Q2 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Veterinary World Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-05 DOI:10.14202/vetworld.2024.2451-2459
Nithida Boonwittaya, Chompoonek Yurayart, Pareeya Udomkusonsri, Saroch Kaewmanee, Somchai Sompaisarnsilp, Naris Thengchaisri, Taksaon Duangurai
{"title":"含醇葡萄糖酸氯己定与含Tris-EDTA的聚六亚甲基双胍作为犬术前皮肤准备防腐液的比较评价。","authors":"Nithida Boonwittaya, Chompoonek Yurayart, Pareeya Udomkusonsri, Saroch Kaewmanee, Somchai Sompaisarnsilp, Naris Thengchaisri, Taksaon Duangurai","doi":"10.14202/vetworld.2024.2451-2459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Skin antisepsis plays a crucial role in pre-operative skin preparation, with chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol being historically the preferred choice. However, concerns have risen regarding the development of bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine. Polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) combined with Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Tris-EDTA) has recently emerged as a skin and wound antiseptic. This study aimed to compare the antibacterial efficacy and local safety of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 70% alcohol (CG+Alc) and 0.3% PHMB with 6% Tris and 1.86% EDTA (PHMB+Tris-EDTA) for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-four adult dogs underwent aseptic preparation on both sides of their ventral abdomens, with one side receiving CG+Alc and the other side receiving PHMB+Tris-EDTA, assigned randomly. Skin swab samples were collected pre-antisepsis and at 3-, 10-, and 60-min post-antisepsis to quantify bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs). Local skin reactions (erythema and edema) were evaluated after hair clipping, pre-antisepsis, and at 3-, 10-, 30-, and 60-min post-antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in bacterial CFU counts between the two antiseptic groups pre-antiseptic. Both solutions significantly reduced CFU counts (p < 0.05) at all post-antisepsis sampling times compared with pre-antisepsis. However, dogs treated with PHMB+Tris-EDTA showed a significantly higher incidence of edema at 10 min (p = 0.02) and 30 min (p = 0.003) and a higher incidence of erythema at 10 min (p = 0.043) post-antisepsis compared with CG+Alc. No skin reactions were observed in either group at 60 min post-antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CG+Alc and PHMB+Tris-EDTA reduced bacterial counts in pre-operative skin preparation in dogs. However, acute transient skin reactions were observed more frequently following the application of PHMB+Tris-EDTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":23587,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary World","volume":"17 11","pages":"2451-2459"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736384/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate with alcohol and polyhexamethylene biguanide with Tris-EDTA as antiseptic solutions for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.\",\"authors\":\"Nithida Boonwittaya, Chompoonek Yurayart, Pareeya Udomkusonsri, Saroch Kaewmanee, Somchai Sompaisarnsilp, Naris Thengchaisri, Taksaon Duangurai\",\"doi\":\"10.14202/vetworld.2024.2451-2459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Skin antisepsis plays a crucial role in pre-operative skin preparation, with chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol being historically the preferred choice. However, concerns have risen regarding the development of bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine. Polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) combined with Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Tris-EDTA) has recently emerged as a skin and wound antiseptic. This study aimed to compare the antibacterial efficacy and local safety of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 70% alcohol (CG+Alc) and 0.3% PHMB with 6% Tris and 1.86% EDTA (PHMB+Tris-EDTA) for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-four adult dogs underwent aseptic preparation on both sides of their ventral abdomens, with one side receiving CG+Alc and the other side receiving PHMB+Tris-EDTA, assigned randomly. Skin swab samples were collected pre-antisepsis and at 3-, 10-, and 60-min post-antisepsis to quantify bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs). Local skin reactions (erythema and edema) were evaluated after hair clipping, pre-antisepsis, and at 3-, 10-, 30-, and 60-min post-antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in bacterial CFU counts between the two antiseptic groups pre-antiseptic. Both solutions significantly reduced CFU counts (p < 0.05) at all post-antisepsis sampling times compared with pre-antisepsis. However, dogs treated with PHMB+Tris-EDTA showed a significantly higher incidence of edema at 10 min (p = 0.02) and 30 min (p = 0.003) and a higher incidence of erythema at 10 min (p = 0.043) post-antisepsis compared with CG+Alc. No skin reactions were observed in either group at 60 min post-antisepsis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CG+Alc and PHMB+Tris-EDTA reduced bacterial counts in pre-operative skin preparation in dogs. However, acute transient skin reactions were observed more frequently following the application of PHMB+Tris-EDTA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary World\",\"volume\":\"17 11\",\"pages\":\"2451-2459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736384/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary World\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2024.2451-2459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2024.2451-2459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:皮肤消毒在术前皮肤准备中起着至关重要的作用,葡萄糖酸氯己定和酒精历来是首选。然而,人们越来越关注细菌对氯己定的耐药性。聚六亚甲基二胍(PHMB)与三乙二胺四乙酸(Tris-EDTA)联用是近年来出现的一种皮肤和伤口防腐剂。本研究旨在比较2%葡萄糖酸氯己定加70%酒精(CG+Alc)和0.3% PHMB加6% Tris和1.86% EDTA (PHMB+Tris-EDTA)在犬术前皮肤准备中的抗菌效果和局部安全性。材料与方法:24只成年犬,在其腹腹两侧进行无菌准备,一侧接受CG+Alc,另一侧接受PHMB+Tris-EDTA,随机分配。在消毒前和消毒后3分钟、10分钟和60分钟采集皮肤拭子样本,定量细菌菌落形成单位(CFUs)。在剪头发、消毒前、消毒后3分钟、10分钟、30分钟和60分钟评估局部皮肤反应(红斑和水肿)。结果:两组患者抗菌前CFU计数差异无统计学意义。与防腐前相比,两种溶液在防腐后的所有采样时间都显著降低了CFU计数(p < 0.05)。然而,与CG+Alc相比,PHMB+Tris-EDTA处理的狗在消毒后10分钟(p = 0.02)和30分钟(p = 0.003)的水肿发生率显著增加,10分钟的红斑发生率显著增加(p = 0.043)。两组患者在消毒后60 min均未见皮肤反应。结论:CG+Alc和PHMB+Tris-EDTA可减少犬术前皮肤准备中的细菌计数。然而,应用PHMB+Tris-EDTA后,观察到的急性短暂性皮肤反应更频繁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate with alcohol and polyhexamethylene biguanide with Tris-EDTA as antiseptic solutions for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.

Background and aim: Skin antisepsis plays a crucial role in pre-operative skin preparation, with chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol being historically the preferred choice. However, concerns have risen regarding the development of bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine. Polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) combined with Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Tris-EDTA) has recently emerged as a skin and wound antiseptic. This study aimed to compare the antibacterial efficacy and local safety of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 70% alcohol (CG+Alc) and 0.3% PHMB with 6% Tris and 1.86% EDTA (PHMB+Tris-EDTA) for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four adult dogs underwent aseptic preparation on both sides of their ventral abdomens, with one side receiving CG+Alc and the other side receiving PHMB+Tris-EDTA, assigned randomly. Skin swab samples were collected pre-antisepsis and at 3-, 10-, and 60-min post-antisepsis to quantify bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs). Local skin reactions (erythema and edema) were evaluated after hair clipping, pre-antisepsis, and at 3-, 10-, 30-, and 60-min post-antisepsis.

Results: There was no significant difference in bacterial CFU counts between the two antiseptic groups pre-antiseptic. Both solutions significantly reduced CFU counts (p < 0.05) at all post-antisepsis sampling times compared with pre-antisepsis. However, dogs treated with PHMB+Tris-EDTA showed a significantly higher incidence of edema at 10 min (p = 0.02) and 30 min (p = 0.003) and a higher incidence of erythema at 10 min (p = 0.043) post-antisepsis compared with CG+Alc. No skin reactions were observed in either group at 60 min post-antisepsis.

Conclusion: CG+Alc and PHMB+Tris-EDTA reduced bacterial counts in pre-operative skin preparation in dogs. However, acute transient skin reactions were observed more frequently following the application of PHMB+Tris-EDTA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Veterinary World
Veterinary World Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
317
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Veterinary World publishes high quality papers focusing on Veterinary and Animal Science. The fields of study are bacteriology, parasitology, pathology, virology, immunology, mycology, public health, biotechnology, meat science, fish diseases, nutrition, gynecology, genetics, wildlife, laboratory animals, animal models of human infections, prion diseases and epidemiology. Studies on zoonotic and emerging infections are highly appreciated. Review articles are highly appreciated. All articles published by Veterinary World are made freely and permanently accessible online. All articles to Veterinary World are posted online immediately as they are ready for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信