Loading…
prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.]
Objective— To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Study Design— Prospective, blinded clinical study. Animals— One hundred and...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Veterinary surgery 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.636-643 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593 |
| container_end_page | 643 |
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 636 |
| container_title | Veterinary surgery |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Lambrechts, N.E Hurter, K Picard, J.A Goldin, J.P Thompson, P.N |
| description | Objective— To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Study Design— Prospective, blinded clinical study.
Animals— One hundred and twenty‐one dogs.
Methods— Cutaneous bacterial colony forming units (CFU) from the perioperative site after skin preparation, after antisepsis, and after surgery (incisional and paramedian), were quantified. The influence of high initial bacterial counts (≥150 CFU) and surgical time on antibacterial efficacy was examined and the proportion of dogs from which Staphylococcus intermedius was cultured, determined. Perioperative skin reactions and wound infections were documented.
Results— All 3 antiseptic solutions significantly and equally reduced CFU to all post‐antisepsis sampling levels irrespective of surgical duration (mean surgical times 151.6, 136.2, and 149.6 minutes for CG+A, SG+A and SG+W, respectively). Median percentage reductions in CFU ranged between 99.3% and 100%. In dogs with initial high counts and disinfected with CG+A and SG+W, the incisional samples had significantly higher counts than the post‐antisepsis samples. In the CG+A and SG+W groups, the proportion of post‐surgery samples yielding S. intermedius was significantly higher at the incisional than the paramedian sites. Eight mild cutaneous reactions were recorded in equal proportions for the 3 solutions. There were no recorded infections.
Conclusions— All 3 preparations had an equal ability to reduce and maintain low CFU counts, with minimal cutaneous reactions.
Clinical Relevance— SG solutions are safe and effective preoperative skin antiseptics for elective clean‐contaminated surgical procedures. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04086.x |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67213550</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>790174151</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkt9u0zAUhyMEYmPwCmBxwVUTjmM7iblAQmN0oBUuRhkSQpabnLTu0jjYydbyUDwj7h8NiRvwjW35Oz_pnM9RRCgkNKyXy4QKlsZSwNckBeAJcCiyZH0vOr57uB8dA81ozLiUR9Ej75cAIDlnD6MjKjIhIYXj6FfnrO-w7M0NktKuOu2Mty2ZYX-L2BLf65lpzE-syLwZeu10U-FiUyHRbUXKRWPdAtemMi1ugdK2ukdSW0c6h7ZDp3fJ_tq0oaI3HjtvPAm3ys59Qr6duYAMq1ck9CHIRG_iD0OLI3KTEMZHpLVhH5EuIankyffH0YNaNx6fHPaTaPru7PPpeXzxafz-9M1FXApWZLGmmOdVIXJZl6AlcI6SCYA005LnABmrhchyqGYpBT1LNa9kQeu8TjUWICQ7iV7sc8N4fgzoe7UyvsSm0S3awassTykTAv4JpkCloDQP4PO_wKUdXBuaUGnQQTkXPEDFHiqDFe-wVp0zK-02ioLamldLtRWstoLV1rzamVfrUPr0kD_MVlj9KTyoDsDrPXBrGtz8d7D6cjndHUNAvA8wvsf1XYB212EcLBfq6uNYXY0n59mEvVWTwD_b87W2Ss_Dv1LTyzAPFr5hluWSst955dQQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215614454</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.]</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><creator>Lambrechts, N.E ; Hurter, K ; Picard, J.A ; Goldin, J.P ; Thompson, P.N</creator><creatorcontrib>Lambrechts, N.E ; Hurter, K ; Picard, J.A ; Goldin, J.P ; Thompson, P.N</creatorcontrib><description>Objective— To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Study Design— Prospective, blinded clinical study.
Animals— One hundred and twenty‐one dogs.
Methods— Cutaneous bacterial colony forming units (CFU) from the perioperative site after skin preparation, after antisepsis, and after surgery (incisional and paramedian), were quantified. The influence of high initial bacterial counts (≥150 CFU) and surgical time on antibacterial efficacy was examined and the proportion of dogs from which Staphylococcus intermedius was cultured, determined. Perioperative skin reactions and wound infections were documented.
Results— All 3 antiseptic solutions significantly and equally reduced CFU to all post‐antisepsis sampling levels irrespective of surgical duration (mean surgical times 151.6, 136.2, and 149.6 minutes for CG+A, SG+A and SG+W, respectively). Median percentage reductions in CFU ranged between 99.3% and 100%. In dogs with initial high counts and disinfected with CG+A and SG+W, the incisional samples had significantly higher counts than the post‐antisepsis samples. In the CG+A and SG+W groups, the proportion of post‐surgery samples yielding S. intermedius was significantly higher at the incisional than the paramedian sites. Eight mild cutaneous reactions were recorded in equal proportions for the 3 solutions. There were no recorded infections.
Conclusions— All 3 preparations had an equal ability to reduce and maintain low CFU counts, with minimal cutaneous reactions.
Clinical Relevance— SG solutions are safe and effective preoperative skin antiseptics for elective clean‐contaminated surgical procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-3499</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-950X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04086.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15659020</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Inc</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Administration, Cutaneous ; Animals ; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage ; antisepsis ; antiseptics ; bacterial colony-forming units ; bacterial contamination ; bacterial infections ; chlorhexidine ; Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage ; Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives ; chlorhexidine gluconate ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Disinfection & disinfectants ; dog ; dog diseases ; Dog Diseases - microbiology ; Dog Diseases - prevention & control ; Dogs ; Double-Blind Method ; ethanol ; Female ; females ; gluconic acid ; Glutaral - administration & dosage ; glutaraldehyde ; Hysterectomy ; Hysterectomy - methods ; Hysterectomy - veterinary ; mixtures ; ovariectomy ; ovariohysterectomy ; postoperative complications ; preoperative care ; Prospective Studies ; skin ; Skin - microbiology ; skin preparation ; Staphylococcus - isolation & purification ; Staphylococcus intermedius ; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control ; Surgical Wound Infection - veterinary ; Treatment Outcome ; Veterinary services]]></subject><ispartof>Veterinary surgery, 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.636-643</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2004 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2004.04086.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1532-950X.2004.04086.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958,50923,51032</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15659020$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lambrechts, N.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurter, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Picard, J.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldin, J.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, P.N</creatorcontrib><title>prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.]</title><title>Veterinary surgery</title><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><description>Objective— To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Study Design— Prospective, blinded clinical study.
Animals— One hundred and twenty‐one dogs.
Methods— Cutaneous bacterial colony forming units (CFU) from the perioperative site after skin preparation, after antisepsis, and after surgery (incisional and paramedian), were quantified. The influence of high initial bacterial counts (≥150 CFU) and surgical time on antibacterial efficacy was examined and the proportion of dogs from which Staphylococcus intermedius was cultured, determined. Perioperative skin reactions and wound infections were documented.
Results— All 3 antiseptic solutions significantly and equally reduced CFU to all post‐antisepsis sampling levels irrespective of surgical duration (mean surgical times 151.6, 136.2, and 149.6 minutes for CG+A, SG+A and SG+W, respectively). Median percentage reductions in CFU ranged between 99.3% and 100%. In dogs with initial high counts and disinfected with CG+A and SG+W, the incisional samples had significantly higher counts than the post‐antisepsis samples. In the CG+A and SG+W groups, the proportion of post‐surgery samples yielding S. intermedius was significantly higher at the incisional than the paramedian sites. Eight mild cutaneous reactions were recorded in equal proportions for the 3 solutions. There were no recorded infections.
Conclusions— All 3 preparations had an equal ability to reduce and maintain low CFU counts, with minimal cutaneous reactions.
Clinical Relevance— SG solutions are safe and effective preoperative skin antiseptics for elective clean‐contaminated surgical procedures.</description><subject>Administration, Cutaneous</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage</subject><subject>antisepsis</subject><subject>antiseptics</subject><subject>bacterial colony-forming units</subject><subject>bacterial contamination</subject><subject>bacterial infections</subject><subject>chlorhexidine</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>chlorhexidine gluconate</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Disinfection & disinfectants</subject><subject>dog</subject><subject>dog diseases</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - prevention & control</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>ethanol</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>females</subject><subject>gluconic acid</subject><subject>Glutaral - administration & dosage</subject><subject>glutaraldehyde</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - methods</subject><subject>Hysterectomy - veterinary</subject><subject>mixtures</subject><subject>ovariectomy</subject><subject>ovariohysterectomy</subject><subject>postoperative complications</subject><subject>preoperative care</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>skin</subject><subject>Skin - microbiology</subject><subject>skin preparation</subject><subject>Staphylococcus - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Staphylococcus intermedius</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - veterinary</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veterinary services</subject><issn>0161-3499</issn><issn>1532-950X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkt9u0zAUhyMEYmPwCmBxwVUTjmM7iblAQmN0oBUuRhkSQpabnLTu0jjYydbyUDwj7h8NiRvwjW35Oz_pnM9RRCgkNKyXy4QKlsZSwNckBeAJcCiyZH0vOr57uB8dA81ozLiUR9Ej75cAIDlnD6MjKjIhIYXj6FfnrO-w7M0NktKuOu2Mty2ZYX-L2BLf65lpzE-syLwZeu10U-FiUyHRbUXKRWPdAtemMi1ugdK2ukdSW0c6h7ZDp3fJ_tq0oaI3HjtvPAm3ys59Qr6duYAMq1ck9CHIRG_iD0OLI3KTEMZHpLVhH5EuIankyffH0YNaNx6fHPaTaPru7PPpeXzxafz-9M1FXApWZLGmmOdVIXJZl6AlcI6SCYA005LnABmrhchyqGYpBT1LNa9kQeu8TjUWICQ7iV7sc8N4fgzoe7UyvsSm0S3awassTykTAv4JpkCloDQP4PO_wKUdXBuaUGnQQTkXPEDFHiqDFe-wVp0zK-02ioLamldLtRWstoLV1rzamVfrUPr0kD_MVlj9KTyoDsDrPXBrGtz8d7D6cjndHUNAvA8wvsf1XYB212EcLBfq6uNYXY0n59mEvVWTwD_b87W2Ss_Dv1LTyzAPFr5hluWSst955dQQ</recordid><startdate>200411</startdate><enddate>200411</enddate><creator>Lambrechts, N.E</creator><creator>Hurter, K</creator><creator>Picard, J.A</creator><creator>Goldin, J.P</creator><creator>Thompson, P.N</creator><general>Blackwell Science Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200411</creationdate><title>prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.]</title><author>Lambrechts, N.E ; Hurter, K ; Picard, J.A ; Goldin, J.P ; Thompson, P.N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Administration, Cutaneous</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage</topic><topic>antisepsis</topic><topic>antiseptics</topic><topic>bacterial colony-forming units</topic><topic>bacterial contamination</topic><topic>bacterial infections</topic><topic>chlorhexidine</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>chlorhexidine gluconate</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Disinfection & disinfectants</topic><topic>dog</topic><topic>dog diseases</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - prevention & control</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>ethanol</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>females</topic><topic>gluconic acid</topic><topic>Glutaral - administration & dosage</topic><topic>glutaraldehyde</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - methods</topic><topic>Hysterectomy - veterinary</topic><topic>mixtures</topic><topic>ovariectomy</topic><topic>ovariohysterectomy</topic><topic>postoperative complications</topic><topic>preoperative care</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>skin</topic><topic>Skin - microbiology</topic><topic>skin preparation</topic><topic>Staphylococcus - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Staphylococcus intermedius</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - veterinary</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veterinary services</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lambrechts, N.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurter, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Picard, J.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goldin, J.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, P.N</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lambrechts, N.E</au><au>Hurter, K</au><au>Picard, J.A</au><au>Goldin, J.P</au><au>Thompson, P.N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.]</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Surg</addtitle><date>2004-11</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>636</spage><epage>643</epage><pages>636-643</pages><issn>0161-3499</issn><eissn>1532-950X</eissn><notes>ArticleID:VSU04086</notes><notes>ark:/67375/WNG-WGMH6M3D-M</notes><notes>istex:4F138A3E1BC89410242DD5246173BF50F8F5CF85</notes><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><notes>ObjectType-Article-2</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-News-3</notes><abstract>Objective— To compare the efficacy of 0.3% stabilized glutaraldehyde and alcohol (SG+A), 0.3% SG and water (SG+W), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate tincture (CG+A), as skin disinfectants in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Study Design— Prospective, blinded clinical study.
Animals— One hundred and twenty‐one dogs.
Methods— Cutaneous bacterial colony forming units (CFU) from the perioperative site after skin preparation, after antisepsis, and after surgery (incisional and paramedian), were quantified. The influence of high initial bacterial counts (≥150 CFU) and surgical time on antibacterial efficacy was examined and the proportion of dogs from which Staphylococcus intermedius was cultured, determined. Perioperative skin reactions and wound infections were documented.
Results— All 3 antiseptic solutions significantly and equally reduced CFU to all post‐antisepsis sampling levels irrespective of surgical duration (mean surgical times 151.6, 136.2, and 149.6 minutes for CG+A, SG+A and SG+W, respectively). Median percentage reductions in CFU ranged between 99.3% and 100%. In dogs with initial high counts and disinfected with CG+A and SG+W, the incisional samples had significantly higher counts than the post‐antisepsis samples. In the CG+A and SG+W groups, the proportion of post‐surgery samples yielding S. intermedius was significantly higher at the incisional than the paramedian sites. Eight mild cutaneous reactions were recorded in equal proportions for the 3 solutions. There were no recorded infections.
Conclusions— All 3 preparations had an equal ability to reduce and maintain low CFU counts, with minimal cutaneous reactions.
Clinical Relevance— SG solutions are safe and effective preoperative skin antiseptics for elective clean‐contaminated surgical procedures.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Inc</pub><pmid>15659020</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04086.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0161-3499 |
| ispartof | Veterinary surgery, 2004-11, Vol.33 (6), p.636-643 |
| issn | 0161-3499 1532-950X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67213550 |
| source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals |
| subjects | Administration, Cutaneous Animals Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage antisepsis antiseptics bacterial colony-forming units bacterial contamination bacterial infections chlorhexidine Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage Chlorhexidine - analogs & derivatives chlorhexidine gluconate Colony Count, Microbial Disinfection & disinfectants dog dog diseases Dog Diseases - microbiology Dog Diseases - prevention & control Dogs Double-Blind Method ethanol Female females gluconic acid Glutaral - administration & dosage glutaraldehyde Hysterectomy Hysterectomy - methods Hysterectomy - veterinary mixtures ovariectomy ovariohysterectomy postoperative complications preoperative care Prospective Studies skin Skin - microbiology skin preparation Staphylococcus - isolation & purification Staphylococcus intermedius Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control Surgical Wound Infection - veterinary Treatment Outcome Veterinary services |
| title | prospective comparison between stabilized glutaraldehyde and chlorhexidine gluconate for preoperative skin antisepsis in dogs. [Erratum: 2005 May-June, v. 34, no. 3, p. 294.] |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-22T07%3A34%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=prospective%20comparison%20between%20stabilized%20glutaraldehyde%20and%20chlorhexidine%20gluconate%20for%20preoperative%20skin%20antisepsis%20in%20dogs.%20%5BErratum:%202005%20May-June,%20v.%2034,%20no.%203,%20p.%20294.%5D&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20surgery&rft.au=Lambrechts,%20N.E&rft.date=2004-11&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=636&rft.epage=643&rft.pages=636-643&rft.issn=0161-3499&rft.eissn=1532-950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04086.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E790174151%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5386-a1e77d8579fc0a9044e9350026a9470063f55670db210ab2a4d981f7f2ae80593%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215614454&rft_id=info:pmid/15659020&rfr_iscdi=true |