SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
Does arthroscopic or open washout in native knee septic arthritis result in superior post-operative function? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSeptic arthritis (SA) of the native knee joint is associated with significant morbidity. This review compared post-operative functional outcomes (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of movement (ROM)) following arthroscopic washout (AW) and open washout (OW) amongst adult patients with SA of the native knee. The need for further operative intervention was also considered.
methodsElectronic databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 16 February 2023 and 18 March 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational analytic studies comparing function (reflected in PROMs or ROM) at latest follow-up following AW and OW were included. A narrative summary was provided concerning post-operative PROMs. Pooled estimates for mean ROM and re-operation rates were conducted using the random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool-2 for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational analytic studies.
resultsOf 2580 retrieved citations, 7 articles (1 RCT and 6 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, five had some concerns/moderate risk of bias, and two had serious risk. There was a slight tendency for superior mean PROMs following AW compared with OW, but due to small effect sizes, this was unlikely clinically relevant. Additionally, the use of four different PROMs scales made direct comparisons impossible. AW was associated with superior ROM (mean difference 20.18° (95% CI 14.35, 26.02; p < 0.00001)), whilst there was a tendency for lower re-operation requirements following AW (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26, 1.57, p = 0.44).
conclusionsAW was associated with equivalent to superior post-operative function and lower requirement for further intervention compared with OW. Results need to be interpreted cautiously, taking into consideration the methodological and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2022, CRD42022364062.
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.