ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
A comparison of arthroscopy combined with continuous irrigation, arthroscopic debridement alone, and open arthrotomy for the treatment of septic arthritis of the native knee.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal surgical treatment for septic arthritis of the knee remains debatable, with few studies comparing different arthroscopic techniques. Furthermore, no study has simultaneously compared arthroscopy combined with continuous irrigation, arthroscopic debridement alone, and open arthrotomy. This study compared the efficacy and success rates of these three surgical methods and analyzed the risk factors for failure following initial surgery.
methodsData were collected from patients who underwent surgery for native knee septic arthritis at the 900th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force in China between 2013 and 2023. A retrospective comparison of demographics, comorbidities, auxiliary examination results, causes, microorganisms, and efficacy outcomes was made among the three surgical groups.
resultsA total of 65 patients (65 knees) were included in the study. All three groups had similar baseline characteristics. Postoperative C-reactive protein levels recovered faster in the continuous irrigation group than in the open group (p < 0.001). Both arthroscopic procedures showed a lower rate of hemoglobin decrease compared with open arthrotomy (p = 0.005 for the continuous irrigation group vs. open group; p = 0.023 for the debridement alone group vs. open group). The initial surgical success rate was higher in the continuous irrigation group (93.3%) than in the open group (65.2%) (p = 0.025). After adjusting for confounding factors through multivariate analysis, this advantage remained, with the risk of initial surgical failure in the open group being 11.31 times that in the continuous irrigation group (odds ratio = 11.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.7-75.24, p = 0.012). No significant differences were observed in postoperative range of motion, pain, or functional scores among the three groups.
conclusionNo significant long-term functional differences were observed among the three surgical methods used to treat septic arthritis of the knee. The continuous irrigation group had an advantage in the early postoperative normalization of CRP levels and a higher initial surgical success rate than the open group. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.