Evaluation of 3 Alcohol-based Agents for Presurgical Skin Preparation in Mice

Abstract

Appropriate aseptic technique is a crucial component of rodent survival surgery. Ease of technique, surgical space constraint, batch surgery, and cost are factors that may affect researcher compliance with appropriate aseptic technique. The first part of this study compared 3 antiseptic preparation agents with the standard triplicate application of povidone-iodine and alcohol. Euthanized mice (n = 40) were shaved on the dorsum, and culture swabs were taken for RODAC plating and bacterial identification. Shaved sites were prepared by using one of the 4 antiseptic preparation agents. Culture samples were obtained immediately and at 20 min after antiseptic preparation. In the 2nd part of the study, 8 mice (n = 2 per group) were prepared for a survival surgical procedure by using one of the 4 antiseptic preparation agents to evaluate whether the antiseptic preparation agents caused skin irritation or impaired healing. Results from this study indicated that all 3 of the antiseptic agents evaluated were equally effective at reducing bacterial populations immediately and at 20 min after preparation. Histopathologic examination of the incision sites revealed signs of normal healing without lesions adjacent to the incision site. We conclude that all 3 of the products evaluated are comparable to traditional povidone–iodine and alcohol as agents for aseptic preparation of surgical sites.

Preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone‐iodine in veterinary surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…A total of 9 RCTs were judged eligible and were included in this review. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]24,25…”

“…The species on which aseptic protocols efficacy was studied were small animals (4 studies, 446 animals), cattle (2, 164), laboratory mice (2, 72), and horses (1,36). Surgery types included in the studies were classified as clean in 7 studies, 12,[14][15][16][17]24,25 and as mixed clean and clean contaminated in 2. 11,13 One study reported SSI incidence as a measure of aseptic protocol efficacy and did not report skin bacterial colonization.…”

“…12 Three studies reported both SSI and skin bacterial colonization, 13,15,17 whereas 5 reported skin bacterial colonization only. 11,14,16,24,25 Diagnosis of SSI was made according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria in 2 studies; 13,17 in the others, assessment was based on predefined clinical criteria. 12,15 The follow-up period for detection of SSI was 30 days in 3 studies 13,15,17 and limited to 14 days in 1 study.…”

“…12,15 The follow-up period for detection of SSI was 30 days in 3 studies 13,15,17 and limited to 14 days in 1 study. 12 Immediate skin bacterial colonization was measured at the preoperative timepoint in all studies, and delayed bacterial colonization was measured at the end-of-surgery timepoint in 5 studies 11,13,15,24,25 or at a predefined time (60, 180 min) in 2 studies. 14,16 Formulation, concentration, and application method of antiseptics were not consistent across studies.…”

The Effect of Different Preoperative Depilation Ways on the Healing of Wounded Skin in Mice

“…The preoperative skin preparation includes hair removal and disinfection of the surgical sites. It has been demonstrated that different disinfection methods indicated no significant differences, irrespective of depilatory agents or electric clippers depilation methods used [ 8 , 9 ]. However, in previous experiments, we have found fortuitously that mice depilated by sodium sulfide aqueous solution and scissors hair cutting methods presented some problems in the stages of wound healing.…”