2015Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopyRequires access

Treatment of septic arthritis of the knee: a comparison between arthroscopy and arthrotomy

Christoph Böhler, Mirnic Dragana, Stephan Puchner, Reinhard Windhager, Johannes Holinka

Open publisher page 67 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of arthroscopy and arthrotomy in patients with septic monarthritis of the knee. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients who underwent surgery because of a bacterial monarthritis were evaluated. Patients were either treated with arthroscopy or with arthrotomy. Our primary outcome was the early recurrence of infection (>3 months after surgery), which made a second surgical procedure necessary. Furthermore, the influence of potential confounders on treatment outcome was analysed. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients, 41 were treated arthroscopically and 29 with arthrotomy. Eight patients (11.4 %) had to undergo a second surgical procedure because of early re-infection. The rate was significantly higher in patients treated with arthrotomy (n = 6; 20.7 %) compared with those treated by arthroscopy (n = 2) (p = 0.041). Range of motion was significantly better in patients who underwent arthroscopy (p < 0.001). Male sex had negative influence on the treatment success (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bacterial monarthritis of the knee who were treated with arthroscopy had a significantly lower re-infection rate and a better functional outcome than those treated with arthrotomy. As arthroscopy is the less invasive method, it should be considered the routine treatment, according to our data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of arthroscopy and arthrotomy in patients with septic monarthritis of the knee. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients who underwent surgery because of a bacterial monarthritis were evaluated. Patients were either treated with arthroscopy or with arthrotomy. Our primary outcome was the early recurrence of infection (>3 months after surgery), which made a second surgical procedure necessary. Furthermore, the influence of potential confounders on treatment outcome was analysed. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients, 41 were treated arthroscopically and 29 with arthrotomy. Eight patients (11.4 %) had to undergo a second surgical procedure because of early re-infection. The rate was significantly higher in patients treated with arthrotomy (n = 6; 20.7 %) compared with those treated by arthroscopy (n = 2) (p = 0.041). Range of motion was significantly better in patients who underwent arthroscopy (p < 0.001). Male sex had negative influence on the treatment success (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bacterial monarthritis of the knee who were treated with arthroscopy had a significantly lower re-infection rate and a better functional outcome than those treated with arthrotomy. As arthroscopy is the less invasive method, it should be considered the routine treatment, according to our data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 67 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of arthroscopy and arthrotomy in patients with septic monarthritis of the knee. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients who underwent surgery because of a bacterial monarthritis were evaluated. Patients were either treated with arthroscopy or with arthrotomy. Our primary outcome was the early recurrence of infection (>3 months after surgery), which made a second surgical procedure necessary. Furthermore, the influence of potential confounders on treatment outcome was analysed. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients, 41 were treated arthroscopically and 29 with arthrotomy. Eight patients (11.4 %) had to undergo a second surgical procedure because of early re-infection. The rate was significantly higher in patients treated with arthrotomy (n = 6; 20.7 %) compared with those treated by arthroscopy (n = 2) (p = 0.041). Range of motion was significantly better in patients who underwent arthroscopy (p < 0.001). Male sex had negative influence on the treatment success (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bacterial monarthritis of the knee who were treated with arthroscopy had a significantly lower re-infection rate and a better functional outcome than those treated with arthrotomy. As arthroscopy is the less invasive method, it should be considered the routine treatment, according to our data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.

Key concepts: Arthrotomy, Medicine, Arthroscopy, Surgery, Septic arthritis, Knee Joint, Internal medicine, Arthritis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Treatment of septic arthritis of the knee: a comparison between arthroscopy and arthrotomy — Research Paper | ScholarLens