Efficiency of octenidine dihydrochloride alcohol combination compared to ethanol based skin antiseptics for preoperative skin preparation in dogs.

Objective: To quantify the bacterial burden after skin disinfection using an alcohol octenidine dihydrochloride combination (Octenisept®) compared to an 74.1% ethanol 10% 2-propanol combination (Softasept N®). Study design: Prospective randomized clinical trial. Material & methods: 61 dogs undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgeries (excluding surgeries on the gastrointestinal tract) were randomly assigned to group O (skin disinfection with alcohol and octenidine dihydrochloride after washing with octenidine containing soap) or to control group C (skin disinfection using the ethanol-2-propanol combination after washing with a neutral soap without antiseptic ingredients). Samples were then taken from 8 different locations within the surgical field at four different stages: after clipping, after washing, after disinfection and one hour later. At each stage, two different sampling techniques (wet-dry swab technique (WDS) and contact plates (CP)) were used for quantitative analysis of bacterial counts. Results: WDS detected about 100-fold more bacteria compared to CP sampling in cases with high bacterial burden, but was not accurate enough to detect small numbers. CP sampling was therefore used for comparison of treatment protocols. 30 dogs were assigned to group O and 31 to group C. A relative reduction of 69% in group O and 77 percent in group C was observed after the soap wash. No significant differences were detected between both groups. Washing and disinfection resulted in a reduction of bacterial counts of 99.99% in group O versus 99.7% in group C (p = 0.018). Bacterial reduction one hour after washing and disinfection was significantly higher in group O (99.9%) than in group C (98.5%, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Additional octenidine dihydrochloride provided a slightly better decontamination effect after disinfection, particularly one hour after, which means it may only be indicated in longer surgeries. WDS is more sensitive but less specific to detect bacteria on the skin than the CP sampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]