Arthroscopic Management of Septic Arthritis of the Native Shoulder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate arthroscopic management of native shoulder joint septic arthritis-specifically, indications, patient outcomes, and complications. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were used to search the literature, and data abstraction was performed independently and in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist guided reporting and data abstraction. The quality of all included studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. The results are presented in a narrative summary fashion using descriptive statistics including means, proportions, ranges, κ values, and intraclass correlation coefficient values. RESULTS: Overall, 27 studies (19 case reports and 8 case series) were identified, including 115 patients (121 shoulders). The mean follow-up period was 29.1 months (range, 1-199 months). The indications for shoulder arthroscopy owing to infection included pain; limited range of motion; swelling, erythema, and tenderness; fever; elevated leukocyte count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and/or C-reactive protein level; synovial aspirate findings; and/or imaging findings. Overall, 46 patients (40%) achieved infection eradication and functional improvement after a single arthroscopic procedure. However, 43 patients (37%) had ongoing symptoms or complications, including 32 (30%) who required revision arthroscopic procedures, 7 (6%) who underwent open arthrotomy for septic arthritis management, 2 (2%) in whom avascular necrosis of the humeral head developed, 1 (1%) in whom adhesive capsulitis developed, and 1 (1%) in whom an irregular profile of the humeral epiphysis developed on plain radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic management of native shoulder septic arthritis can yield alleviation of pain and a return to full range of motion, daily activities, and sports. However, there is a high reoperation rate, which may correlate with poor patient prognostic factors. This systematic review did not show the superiority of either arthroscopic surgery or open arthrotomy for the management of shoulder septic arthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".