For this study researchers wanted to assess the functional outcomes of two different technique types, medicinal and surgical, employed in the treatment of native joint septic arthritis. They evaluated the clinical registries of patients admitted to a single third-level hospital with the diagnosis of septic arthritis between January 1, 2008, and January 31, 2016. A total of 63 instances of septic arthritis were found, with 49 patients receiving medicinal treatment (arthrocentesis) and 14 patients receiving surgical treatment (arthroscopy or arthrotomy). Because of inadequate development, 15 of the 49 patients who had first medical therapy (IMT) required surgical surgery. The patients’ median age was 60 (standard deviation, 18) years. The IMT group was older than the first surgical therapy group (median, 64 years [interquartile range (IQR), 54–76 years] vs. 48 years [IQR, 30–60 years]). The surgical group had a higher proportion of male patients (78% vs. 42% [p=0.018]). About 30% of the medical group was on corticosteroid therapy (p = 0.018). After one year, there were no significant differences incomplete recovery of joint functioning (68% with MT vs. 67% with ST, p=0.91). Both groups had comparable symptom duration until diagnosis, antibiotic treatment length (median, 30 days [IQR, 28–49 days] vs. 29.5 days [IQR, 27–49] days), and death rate (3 in the medical group). The study’s findings indicate that initial surgical therapy is not superior to IMT in individuals with native joint septic arthritis.
Reference:journals.lww.com/jclinrheum/Fulltext/2019/01000/Medical_Versus_Surgical_Approach_to_Initial.2.aspx
