Milk hygienic practices and occurrence of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in small-scale dairy farms in Sao Paulo, Brazil

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between somatic cell counts (SCC), the use of different milking practices, and the occurrence of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in 42 small-scale dairy farms located in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. S. aureus and E. coli O157:H7 were isolated in the milk from dairy cows with low (< 200,000 cells/ml) and high SCC (>200,000 cells/ml), although no effect of SCC (p > 0.05) was observed on the incidence of the bacteria in raw milk. The use of disposable gloves during milking reduced S. aureus counts in milk (p < 0.05), but did not affect the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7. The other milking practices evaluated (closed milking system, use of pre- and post-dipping, mastitis diagnosis by strip cup test, and disinfection of teat cups) did not affect (p < 0.05) the occurrence of S. aureus or E. coli O157:H7 in raw milk. Results indicate the need for effective educational programs addressed to prevent the contamination of milk with S. aureus and E. coli O157:H7 in Brazilian small-scale dairy farms.

Viral contamination during sequential phacoemulsification surgeries in an experimental model

Purpose: To determine the incidence of Piry virus contamination among surgical instruments used with disposable accessories for phacoemulsification during sequential surgeries. Methods: An experimental model was created with 4 pigs' eyes that were contaminated with Piry virus and 4 pigs' eyes that were not contaminated. Phacoemulsification was performed on the eyes, alternating between the contaminated and non-contaminated eyes. From one surgery to another, the operating fields, gloves, scalpel, tweezers, needles, syringes, tips and bag collector from the phacoemulsification machine were exchanged; only the hand piece and the irrigation and aspiration systems were maintained. Results: In the collector bag, three samples from the contaminated eyes (3/4) were positive, and two samples from the non-contaminated (2/4) eyes were also positive; at the tip, one sample from the contaminated eyes (1/4) and two samples of the noncontaminated eyes (2/4) yielded positive results. In the irrigation system, one sample from a non-contaminated eye (1/4) was positive, and in the aspiration system, two samples from contaminated eyes (2/4) and two samples from non-contaminated eyes (2/4) were positive. In the gloves, the samples were positive in two samples from the non-contaminated eyes (2/4) and in two samples from the contaminated eyes (2/4). In the scalpel samples, three contaminated eyes (3/4) and none of the non-contaminated eyes (0/4) were positive; finally, two samples from the anterior chambers of the non-contaminated eyes gathered after surgery were positive. Conclusions: In two non-contaminated eyes, the presence of genetic material was detected after phacoemulsification surgery, demonstrating that the transmission of the genetic material of the Piry virus occurred at some point during the surgery on these non-contaminated eyes when the hand piece and irrigation and aspiration systems were reused between surgeries.

Perioperative latex hypersensitivity reactions: an integrative literature review

This article characterizes hypersensitivity reactions during anesthetic-surgical procedures. This integrative literature review was conducted in the LILACS, CINAHL, COCHRANE and MEDLINE databases including papers published from 1966 to September 2011. A total of 17 case reports, two prevalence studies and one cohort study were identified. Latex reactions were mainly type III and the primary source of intraoperative reaction was latex gloves. The average time for clinical manifestation was 59.8 minutes after anesthetic induction; 44.4% of patients reported a reaction to latex at the pre-anesthetic evaluation. It was determined that the history of allergic reactions to latex obtained in the pre-anesthetic evaluation does not ensure the safety of patients if the staff is inattentive to the severity of the issue. There is also a tendency to initially attribute the anaphylactic event to the anesthetic drugs.