Main Article Content

Abstract

This study was carried out to evaluate the level of asepsis at various stages of the surgical procedures during the undergraduate students’ wet-lab sessions. Skin and/or wound swabs were collected from different wet lab groups, sessions and stages. The swabs were processed for bacteriological isolation using standard microbiological procedures. A total of 62 isolates of bacteria belonging to 8 genera: Staphylococcus (n=38), Streptococcus (n=1), Corynebacterium n=4), Escherichia (n=7), Proteus (n=8), Klebsiella (n=2), Serratia (n=1) and Acinetobacter (1), were isolated. The most commonly isolated species of bacteria were Staphylococcus equorum (n=31) and Proteus spp. (n=7), which were detected in swabs from ungloved and gloved hands of surgeon and his assistant, patient’s surgical sites and surgical site infections. All the isolates (Gram-positive and negative) were resistant to at least one antibiotic with resistance to the β-lactam antibiotics: ampicillin (89.3% and 100% and amoxicillin (75% and 100%) most observed. The bacteria were more susceptible to doxycycline (75%) and imipenem (87.5%) respectively. Majority of the isolates (83.3%, n=30) were multidrug resistant, presenting in one of 24 different multidrug resistance patterns. The detection of these bacteria from the normally aseptic surgical procedure indicates a break in asepsis. Similarly, the danger of spreading multidrug resistant bacteria to the surgical wounds may result in wound infection, dehiscence, delayed healing and increased cost of post-surgical management. It is recommended that adherence to stringent pre-surgical and intra-surgical asepsis should be observed.

Keywords

Small animal; Wet-labs; Contamination; Aerobic bacteria; Multi-drug resistance

Article Details

How to Cite
Muhammad, S. T., Mamman , P. H., Abdurrahman, M., Bada, A. A., & Awasum, C. A. (2020). Contamination of Gloved Hands by Multidrug Resistant Bacteria ‎During Small Animal Surgery Wet-labs and its Potential Implication for ‎Occurrence of Surgical Site Infections. Sahel Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 17(4), 46-51. Retrieved from http://saheljvs.org/index.php/saheljvs/article/view/156

References

  1. Andrade, N., Schmiedt, C.W., Cornell K, Radlinsky, M.G., ‎Heidingsfelder, L., Clarke, K., Hurley, D.J.and ‎Hinson, W.D. (2016). Survey of Intraoperative ‎Bacterial Contamination in Dogs Undergoing ‎Elective Orthopedic Surgery. Vet. Surg., ‎https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12483.‎
  2. Basak, S., Singh, P. and Rajurkar, M. (2016). Multidrug ‎resistant and extensively drug resistant bacteria: A ‎study. J. Pathogens, Pp 1-5.‎ Resistant Bacteria: A Study. Journal of Pathogens, www.dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4065603.‎
  3. Bauer, A.W., Kirby, W.M.M., Sherris, J.C.and Turck, M. ‎‎(1966). Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a ‎standardized single disk method. Am. J. ‎Clin. Pathol., 36: 493-496.‎
  4. CDC (2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‎National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic ‎Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of ‎Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP) Accessed ‎from www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/organisms.html ‎on 23rd April, 2020‎ ‎2018.‎
  5. Chaudhary, R., Thapa, S.K., Rana, J.C.and Shah, P.K. ‎‎(2017). Surgical site infections and antimicrobial ‎resistance pattern. J. Nepal Health Res. Counl., ‎‎15(36): 120-123.‎
  6. Cheesbrough, M. (2006). District Laboratory Practice in ‎Tropical Countries, 2nded. Cambridge University ‎Press, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK. 5th Printing, 2010: ‎‎45-70.‎
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2016). ‎Performance standards for antimicrobial ‎susceptibility testing; Twenty-sixth informational ‎supplement. CLSI document M100-S26. Wayne, ‎PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute ‎
  8. Davis., M.F., Iverson, S.A, Baron, P., Vasse, A, Silbergeld, ‎E.K., Lautenbach, E.and Morris, D.O. (2012). ‎House.hold transmission of meticillin-resistant ‎Staphylococcus aureus and other staphylococci. ‎Lancet Infect. Dis., 12: 703-716.‎
  9. De Oliveira, A.C.and Gama, C.S. (2016). Surgical antisepsis ‎practices and use of surgical gloves as a potential ‎risk factors to intraoperative contamination. Esc. ‎Ann. Nery, 20(2):370-377.‎
  10. Godebo G., Kibru, G.and Tassew, H. (2013). Multidrug-‎resistant bacteria isolates in infected wounds at ‎Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia. ‎Ann. Clin. Microbiol. and Antimicrob., Pp. 12: 17.‎
  11. Harper, T. A. M., Bridgewater, S., Brown, L., Pow-Brown P., ‎Stewart-John, A.and Adesiyun, A.A. ‎‎(2013). Bioaerosol sampling for airborne bacteria in ‎a small animal veterinary teaching hospital. Inf. ‎Ecol. Epidemiol., 3(1): 20376.‎
  12. Meakins, L.B., Gilman, O.P., Parsons, K.J, Burton, N.J.and ‎Langley-Hobbs, S.J. (2016). Colored indicator ‎undergloves increase the detection of glove ‎perforations by surgeons during small animal ‎orthopedic surgery: A randomized controlled trail. ‎Vet. Surg., 45(6): 709-714.‎
  13. Mundhada, A.S.and Tenpe, S. (2015). A study of organisms ‎causing surgical site infections and their ‎antimicrobial susceptibility in a tertiary care ‎Government Hospital. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol., ‎‎58:195-200.‎
  14. Nelson, L. (2011). Surgical site infections in small animal ‎surgery. Vet. Clin. Small Anim., 41:1041-1056.‎
  15. Pirvanescu, H., Balasoiu, M., Ciurea, M.E., Balasoiu, A.T.and ‎Manescu, R. (2014). Wound infections with ‎multidrug resistant bacteria. Chirurgia (Bucur), ‎‎109(1): 73-79.‎
  16. Spagnolo, A.M., Ottria, G., Amicizia, D., Perdelli, F.and ‎Cristina, M.L. (2013). Operating theater quality and ‎prevention of surgical site infections. J. Prev. Med. ‎Hyg., 54(3): 131-137.‎
  17. Walker, I. A., Rashamwalla,and Wilson, I. H. (2012). Surgical ‎Safety checklists: do they improve outcomes? ‎British J. Anaesthesiol., 109(1): 47-54.‎
  18. Weese, J.S. (2008). A review of multidrug resistant surgical ‎site infections. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol., ‎‎21(1):1-7.‎