ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2023
Arthroscopic versus open irrigation and debridement in native knee septic arthritis: A retrospective review.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a six-portal arthroscopic technique in managing acute septic arthritis of the native knee: A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary orthopaedic department.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- The impact of surgical timing on reoperation after arthroscopic versus open treatment of acute native knee septic arthritis.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Management of lumbar spinal epidural abscess using biportal endoscopic approach: a case series.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A comparison of arthroscopy combined with continuous irrigation, arthroscopic debridement alone, and open arthrotomy for the treatment of septic arthritis of the native knee.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Native knee septic arthritis is a rare condition with a potential for high morbidity if not promptly treated. Treatment involves surgical decompression of the affected joint along with systemic antibiotic therapy. The purpose of this study is to compare arthroscopic versus open irrigation and debridement for treatment of native knee septic arthritis. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single academic institution of all patients treated for native knee septic arthritis from January 2007 until August 2018 utilizing ICD and CPT codes. Patient demographics, type of surgical procedure, need for reoperation, laboratory values, length of stay, and comorbidities were compared. Results: A cohort of sixty-six patients who underwent 85 surgeries were included. Among these surgeries, 52 (61%) were arthroscopic while 33 (39%) were open arthrotomies, and 21% required more than one operation. While not statistically significant, the odds of reoperation was higher for those that underwent arthroscopic compared to open irrigation and debridement on univariable ( Conclusion: Native knee septic arthritis can be treated with a single surgery in the majority of cases. In our sample, there was an increased odds of reoperation in those treated arthroscopically compared to open, though this finding was not statistically significant. We found longer length of stay for patients undergoing arthroscopic rather than open irrigation and debridement - even after controlling for multiple operations, culture status, sex, age, and comorbidities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.