ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Comparative Outcomes of Arthroscopic versus Open Surgical Approaches in the Management of Septic Arthritis of the Knee: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Septic arthritis (SA) of the knee is a serious condition requiring prompt intervention. The choice between arthroscopic and open surgical approaches remains debated. This study compares the clinical outcomes of these two surgical techniques in the treatment of knee SA. The primary objective was to compare the need for additional surgical interventions between the arthroscopic and open surgery groups. Secondary outcomes included a range of motion (ROM), pain reduction, functional improvement, and infection control as measured by total leukocyte count (TLC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 32 adult patients diagnosed with acute native knee SA who underwent either arthroscopic or open surgical irrigation between January 2022 and November 2024 at an Indian Government Medical College. Data on demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory results, and surgical details were collected. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for ROM, pain reduction (Visual Analog Scale), functional improvement (WOMAC), and TLC. Statistical analysis was performed using Jamovi v2.3.28. Result: The arthroscopic group (n = 20) had a significantly younger mean age (35.4 ± 11.0 years) compared to the open surgery group (n = 12, 48.9 ± 10.6 years). Both groups showed significant improvement in joint function, ROM, pain reduction, and disability scores, with no significant difference between groups. The relapse rate was slightly higher in the open surgery group (33.3%) compared to the arthroscopic group (25%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The clinical outcomes of both arthroscopic and open surgical approaches were equivocal, with both techniques leading to significant improvements in knee function, ROM, pain reduction, and overall disability. Arthroscopy is recommended as a first-line option for younger or less severely affected patients, whereas open surgery remains necessary for complex cases. Further studies are needed to refine treatment strategies.
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.