ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Surgical Management of Gonococcal Septic Arthritis: A Case Series and Literature Review.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Purulent gonococcal septic arthritis (GSA) is a rare but clinically significant manifestation of disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI) with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG). Presenting distinctly from the arthritis-dermatitis syndrome associated with DGI, GSA poses a unique diagnostic challenge as it presents as monoarthritis or oligoarthritis without systemic features. Current guidelines do not distinguish between these presentations of gonococcal arthritis, and there are no existing recommendations on the surgical management of purulent GSA. Case Report: We present a single-institution case series of three patients aged 33-51 with five joints confirmed to have GSA by Biofire joint panel polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were treated with surgical incision and drainage (I&D). In this case series, four of five joints yielded no growth with standard cultures methods, underscoring the diagnostic difficulty of isolating NG. One patient experienced deterioration of symptoms despite broad-spectrum antibiosis. Two patients received intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone for 14 days following I&D, and one received IV ceftriaxone while inpatient, followed by cefixime oral therapy for 21 days after discharge. All patients were co-managed with infectious disease and had clinical improvement with improved range of motion and downtrending inflammatory markers at follow-up. Conclusion: This case series supports the role of I&D in combination with parenteral antibiosis in treating purulent GSA. Molecular testing, such as Biofire joint panel PCR, is useful in detecting NG due to superior sensitivity in identifying the fastidious organism. Multicenter prospective trials are needed to establish evidence-based surgical guidelines and antibiotic management in the face of emerging resistance.
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.