Arthroscopy or arthrotomy for native knee septic arthritis: A systematic review

Purpose

Septic arthritis of any joint is an orthopaedic emergency which requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The knee is the commonest joint afflicted, and the primary objective of any treatment is complete source control. This commonly takes the form of antibiotic therapy and a washout of the infected joint by means of arthroscopy or arthrotomy. The primary aim of this review is to investigate if arthroscopic washout for native knee septic arthritis confers a lower risk of repeat procedure than arthrotomy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of the MEDLINE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library data bases. The primary outcome of interest was requirement for repeat washout with all-cause complications, length of inpatient stay and mortality secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 17,140 subjects were included for analysis of the primary outcome, and the overall rate of repeat procedure was 14.6%. No statistical difference was found between arthroscopy and arthrotomy for repeat washout (risk ratio 0.86 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.72-1.02], I 2 = 36%). Eligible studies found in favour of arthroscopy for all-cause complication rate (risk ratio 0.75 [95% CI: 0.6-0.93], I 2 = 84%) and length of stay in hospital (mean difference -1.98 days [95% CI: -3.43 to -0.53], I 2 = 84%). No statistical difference was found for the mortality rate (risk ratio 1.17 [95% CI: 0.52-2.63], I 2 = 57%).

Conclusion

Our analysis found arthroscopy and open arthrotomy to be equivocal for repeat surgical washout in native knee septic arthritis. All-cause complication rate and length of inpatient stay were favourable for arthroscopy with no difference noted between mortality rates.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Fracture-Related Infection in Bicolumnar Acetabular Fracture: A Case Report

Case: A 51-year-old man was affected by a fracture-related infection after a bicolumnar acetabular fracture. A significant alteration of the anatomy was present; thus, a 3D-printed model was useful for planning. A two-stage treatment was planned: in the first stage, implant removal with irrigation and debridement was performed, while in the second stage, a new osteosynthesis and implant of a THA were planned. During the second stage, the patient suffered a cardiogenic shock, so a third surgical procedure was necessary to implant THA. Targeted antibiotic therapy was administered eight weeks after the first stage, with the resolution of the infection. Conclusions: The infection was resolved following the recent guidelines and treating it like a periprosthetic infection with a two-stage revision. A collaboration between specialists in orthopaedics and infectious disease, respectively, and using multidisciplinary approach, were mandatory.