Medical versus surgical treatment in native hip and knee septic arthritis

Abstract

ObjectiveAntibiotic treatment and arthroscopic or open drainage is the gold standard for septic arthritis. Full recovery takes time after surgery and hospital stay is longer than for arthrocentesis at the bedside. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of arthrocentesis (medical approach) versus a surgical approach. MethodWe retrospectively included 97 cases of native joint arthritis (hip and knee) between 2010 and 2017. The primary outcome was treatment failure of medical and surgical approaches (defined as surgical intervention within 7 days following diagnosis). Risk factors of failure were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. ResultsWe included 72 cases of knee arthritis, of which 43 and 29 were treated medically and surgically, respectively; 25 cases of hip arthritis, of which 8 and 17 were treated medically and surgically, respectively. Failure was observed in 39.2% of cases in the medical group and in 30.4% in the surgical group (P=0.2) (37.5% vs. 52.9% and 39.5% vs. 17.2% for hip and knee, respectively). The univariate analysis identified age and male sex as risk factors for failure (P=0.048 and P=0.02, respectively), but only age was independently associated with failure (P=0.04). Hospital length of stay was 12 days shorter in the medical group (21 vs. 33 days, P=0.02), sequelae were less frequent and less important in the medical group (31.7% vs. 60%). ConclusionThe medical treatment seems to be as effective as the surgical treatment for native joint septic arthritis with a shorter hospital stay and better functional outcome. Further prospective studies are warranted.