ArticleVeterinary world2024
Comparative evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate with alcohol and polyhexamethylene biguanide with Tris-EDTA as antiseptic solutions for pre-operative skin preparation in dogs.
Article in Veterinary world, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.