← Articles

McCagherty et al: Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats
Veterinary Surgery 6, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bacterial fluorescence was detected in all wounds (17 dogs, 4 cats) using the point-of-care wound imaging device (WID).
  • The WID confirmed the presence of clinically relevant wound infection in all evaluated cases at the time of imaging.
  • No significant difference was found in bacterial yield or burden between image-guided and non-guided swabs (QBC and PCR; p > 0.05).
  • The WID helped guide wound debridement in some cases by localizing areas of fluorescence, especially in necrotic tissue.
  • Most infections were polymicrobial and dominated by anaerobes, highlighting the need for anaerobic culture inclusion.
  • PCR analysis showed low bacterial DNA yields, often complicated by host DNA contamination, limiting its utility.
  • The study did not evaluate sensitivity/specificity of WID, as only fluorescence-positive wounds were included.
  • Clinical utility of WID lies in immediate visual confirmation of infection, supporting timely antimicrobial treatment decisions.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

McCagherty et al: Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats
Veterinary Surgery 6, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bacterial fluorescence was detected in all wounds (17 dogs, 4 cats) using the point-of-care wound imaging device (WID).
  • The WID confirmed the presence of clinically relevant wound infection in all evaluated cases at the time of imaging.
  • No significant difference was found in bacterial yield or burden between image-guided and non-guided swabs (QBC and PCR; p > 0.05).
  • The WID helped guide wound debridement in some cases by localizing areas of fluorescence, especially in necrotic tissue.
  • Most infections were polymicrobial and dominated by anaerobes, highlighting the need for anaerobic culture inclusion.
  • PCR analysis showed low bacterial DNA yields, often complicated by host DNA contamination, limiting its utility.
  • The study did not evaluate sensitivity/specificity of WID, as only fluorescence-positive wounds were included.
  • Clinical utility of WID lies in immediate visual confirmation of infection, supporting timely antimicrobial treatment decisions.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In McCagherty 2025 et al., on WID detection accuracy, what was the primary utility of the wound imaging device (WID) in small animal wound management?

A. Quantification of bacterial DNA in wounds
B. Detection of polymicrobial wound microbiomes
C. Real-time visualization of clinically significant bacterial infection
D. Prevention of surgical site infection
E. Assessment of wound depth

Answer: Real-time visualization of clinically significant bacterial infection

Explanation: The WID confirmed infections at the time of imaging, aiding immediate intervention.
In McCagherty 2025 et al., on WID detection accuracy, what was a notable limitation of using PCR in this study?

A. Contamination from reagents
B. Inability to detect Gram-negative bacteria
C. High bacterial DNA yield interfering with results
D. Poor DNA recovery due to host contamination
E. All PCR results were false positives

Answer: Poor DNA recovery due to host contamination

Explanation: Patient DNA dominated the samples, requiring extra processing for meaningful results.
In McCagherty 2025 et al., on WID detection accuracy, how did image-guided swabs compare to non-guided swabs in bacterial yield?

A. Guided swabs had significantly higher yield
B. Guided swabs detected more anaerobic species
C. No significant difference was found between groups
D. Non-guided swabs showed greater CFU count
E. Guided swabs had fewer contaminant species

Answer: No significant difference was found between groups

Explanation: Paired swabs showed no statistical difference in species count or CFU yield.
In McCagherty 2025 et al., on WID detection accuracy, which feature of the WID aided in guiding wound debridement?

A. Heat detection imaging
B. Red fluorescence from bacterial porphyrins
C. Infrared mapping of inflammation
D. Pressure-sensing technology
E. Cyan autofluorescence of tissue

Answer: Red fluorescence from bacterial porphyrins

Explanation: Red fluorescence indicated high bacterial load areas, aiding targeted debridement.
In McCagherty 2025 et al., on WID detection accuracy, what was the main type of bacterial population detected in most wound infections?

A. Aerobic Gram-positive cocci
B. Polymicrobial with anaerobic predominance
C. Single-species Gram-negative rods
D. Commensal-only microbiota
E. Fungal pathogens

Answer: Polymicrobial with anaerobic predominance

Explanation: Most wounds were polymicrobial and dominated by anaerobic species.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Espinel Rupérez

 et al: 

Arthroscopic‐assisted hip toggle stabilization in cats: An ex vivo feasibility study

Buote

 et al: 

Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy in felines: A cadaveric feasibility study and experimental case series in two cats

Kimura

 et al: 

Long‐term outcomes of 10 dogs weighing less than 4 kg after Zurich mini‐cementless total hip arthroplasty

Downey

 et al: 

Evaluation of long‐term outcome after lung lobectomy for canine non‐neoplastic pulmonary consolidation via thoracoscopic or thoracoscopic‐assisted surgery in 12 dogs

Aly

 et al: 

Effect of surgical simulator training on student and live animal outcomes in a feline ovariohysterectomy teaching laboratory