Skip to main content

Table 8 Summary of findings for arthroscopic washout compared with open washout for native knee joint septic arthritis

From: Does arthroscopic or open washout in native knee septic arthritis result in superior post-operative function? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Patients or population: Adult patients with septic arthritis of the native knee joint

Intervention: Arthroscopic washout (AW)

Comparison: Open arthrotomy washout (OW)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks

Relative effect

Number of participants (studies)

Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

 

AW

OW

    

Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale [32]

The mean score was 93.8 points

The mean score was 6.6 points lower

-

21 (1 RCT)

⨁⨁⨁O1

AW may result in a superior LKSS, however, difference non-significant

Bussiere and Beaufils functional scale [33]

Function regarded as ‘good’ in 71.4%

Function regarded as ‘good’ in 21.1%

-

40 (1 cohort study)

⨁⨁OO2

AW may result in a superior BBFs, however, difference non-significant

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [34]

The mean score was 17 points

The mean score was 0.9 points lower

-

27 (1 cohort study)

⨁⨁OO3

AW may result in a superior WOMAC, however, difference non-significant

Larson score [35]

The mean score was 74 points

The mean score was 13 points lower

-

51 (1 cohort study)

⨁OOO4

AW may result in a superior Larson score, however, difference non-significant

Range of movement

The mean ranged from 90 to 106°

The mean ranged from 70 to 95°

Mean difference 20.18°

282 (4 cohort studies)

⨁OOO5

AW associated with superior post-operative ROM

Need for further intervention

Rates of reoperation ranged from 4.0 to 50.4% in the observational studies, 0 in the RCT

Rates of reoperation ranged from 13.3 to 71.4% in the observational studies, 18.2% in the RCT

OR 0.64

384 (6 cohort studies, 1 RCT)

⨁OOO6

AW may be associated with lower re-operation requirement, however, difference non-significant

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence [19]. ⨁⨁⨁⨁High certainty, we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. ⨁⨁⨁OModerate certainty, we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. ⨁⨁OOLow certainty, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. ⨁OOOVery low certainty, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Explanations: 1, Down-graded one level due to some concerns regarding bias in measurement of outcomes; 2, single observational study with possible bias due to confounding and selection bias; 3, single observational study with moderate risk of bias due to confounding; 4, single observational study down-graded 1 point due to at high risk of bias due to confounding and moderate risk of selection and reporting bias; 5, down-graded 1 point due to high risk of confounding in several of the included observational studies; no significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 14%); 6, down-graded 1 point due to high risk due to confounding in several of the included observational studies; moderate heterogeneity present (I2 52%)
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053