• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两种牛手术部位方案在野外环境中的比较。

Comparison of two surgical site protocols for cattle in a field setting.

作者信息

Bourel Clara, Buczinski Sébastien, Desrochers André, Harvey Denis

机构信息

Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Département des sciences cliniques, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada J2S 7C6.

出版信息

Vet Surg. 2013 Feb;42(2):223-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.01089.x. Epub 2013 Feb 1.

DOI:10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.01089.x
PMID:23373589
Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

在野外环境中比较牛站立式剖腹术的两种术前手术部位处理方案。

研究设计

队列研究。

动物

接受清洁站立式剖腹术(手术期间无内脏穿孔)的奶牛(n = 73)。

方法

奶牛被随机分配到两种术前皮肤准备方案中的一种,使用洗必泰作为防腐剂。将标准方案(3分钟清洗擦洗、自来水冲洗、用无菌一次性洗必泰擦洗进行3分钟手术擦洗,并交替使用酒精和2%洗必泰溶液(7分钟;n = 32))与一种3分钟的简化术前方案进行比较,该简化方案包括两个90秒的清洗擦洗阶段和3次使用70%异丙醇溶液中的0.5%葡萄糖酸氯己定(4分钟;n = 32)。术前和术后的皮肤细菌计数以及术后10 - 15天伤口的临床评估,以及对生产者进行的聚焦于术后30天伤口感染的标准化访谈,用于比较两种方案。

结果

两种方案在围手术期的绝对菌落形成单位(CFU)和CFU减少百分比以及术后10 - 15天手术伤口临床评分方面没有差异。30天时的感染率为10.5%(6/57),但两种方案之间未观察到显著差异,分别为10%(3/30)和11.5%(3/27)。

结论

使用非无菌可重复使用材料的简化术前方案在减少皮肤微生物群和预防手术伤口感染方面可与使用无菌一次性刷子的标准方案一样有效。

相似文献

1
Comparison of two surgical site protocols for cattle in a field setting.两种牛手术部位方案在野外环境中的比较。
Vet Surg. 2013 Feb;42(2):223-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.01089.x. Epub 2013 Feb 1.
2
Comparative evaluation of two surgical scrub preparations in cattle.
Vet Surg. 1996 Jul-Aug;25(4):336-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1996.tb01422.x.
3
Evaluation of surgical scrub methods for large animal surgeons.大型动物外科医生手术刷手法的评估
Vet Surg. 1997 Sep-Oct;26(5):382-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1997.tb01697.x.
4
Effect of surgical site infections with waterless and traditional hand scrubbing protocols on bacterial growth.无水和传统手部刷洗方案的手术部位感染对细菌生长的影响。
Am J Infect Control. 2012 May;40(4):e15-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.09.008. Epub 2012 Feb 2.
5
Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis.氯己定-酒精与聚维酮碘用于手术部位消毒。
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):18-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.
6
Preoperative Hand Decontamination in Ophthalmic Surgery: A Comparison of the Removal of Bacteria from Surgeons' Hands by Routine Antimicrobial Scrub versus an Alcoholic Hand Rub.眼科手术中的术前手部消毒:常规抗菌擦洗与酒精擦手对手术医生手部细菌清除效果的比较
Curr Eye Res. 2017 Sep;42(9):1333-1337. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2017.1304559. Epub 2017 May 30.
7
A prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs.戊二醛稳定液与葡萄糖酸洗必泰用于犬术前皮肤消毒的前瞻性比较。
Vet Surg. 2004 Nov-Dec;33(6):636-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04086.x.
8
Is alcohol-based hand disinfection equivalent to surgical scrub before placing a central venous catheter?酒精擦手消毒与置管前外科刷手效果等效吗?
Anesth Analg. 2012 Mar;114(3):622-5. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824083b8. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
9
Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery.新型创新型2%葡萄糖酸氯己定浸渍布与4%葡萄糖酸氯己定作为术前皮肤准备局部防腐剂的比较。
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Mar;35(2):89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.06.012.
10
An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts.关于皮肤状况和微生物计数对五种外科洗手方案的评估。
J Hosp Infect. 1997 May;36(1):49-65. doi: 10.1016/s0195-6701(97)90090-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Application of chlorous acid water for disinfection of surgical site in dairy cows.氯酸水在奶牛手术部位消毒中的应用
Front Vet Sci. 2025 Feb 26;12:1444674. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1444674. eCollection 2025.
2
Preoperative skin asepsis in bovine surgery: an outcome-blinded 3-arm randomized clinical trial under non-sterile operating room conditions.牛手术中的术前皮肤无菌处理:在非无菌手术室条件下进行的一项结局设盲的三臂随机临床试验。
Front Vet Sci. 2024 Dec 6;11:1446649. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1446649. eCollection 2024.
3
Bacterial Contamination of the Surgical Site at the Time of Elective Caesarean Section in Belgian Blue Cows-Part 2: Identified by 16Sr DNA Amplicon Sequencing.
比利时蓝牛择期剖宫产时手术部位的细菌污染——第2部分:通过16Sr DNA扩增子测序鉴定
Vet Sci. 2023 Jan 26;10(2):94. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10020094.