Abstract
Aim
The optimal surgical approach for patients hospitalized for moderate to severe septic bursitis is not known, and there have been no randomized trials of a one-stage compared with a two-stage (i.e., bursectomy, followed by closure in a second procedure) approach. Thus, we performed a prospective, non-blinded, randomized study of adult patients hospitalized for an open bursectomy.
Method
Patients were randomized 1:1 to a one-stage vs. a two-stage surgical approach. All patients received postsurgical oral antibiotic therapy for 7 days. These are the final results of the prospective study registered at ClinicalTrials (NCT01406652).
Results
Among 164 enrolled patients, 130 had bursitis of the elbow and 34 of the patella. The surgical approach used was one-stage in 79 and two-stage in 85. The two groups were balanced with regards to sex, age, causative pathogens, levels of serum inflammatory markers, co-morbidities, and cause of bursitis. Overall, there were 22 treatment failures: 8/79 (10%) in the one-stage arm and 14/85 (16%) in the two-stage arm (Pearson-χ2-test; p=0.23). Recurrent infection was caused by the same pathogen a total of 7 patients (4%), and by a different pathogen in 5 episodes (3%). The incidence of infection recurrence was not significantly different between those in the one- vs. two-stage arms (6/79 vs. 8/85; χ2-test: p=0.68). In contrast, outcomes were better in the one- vs. two-stage arm for wound dehiscence (2/79[3%] vs. 10/85[12%]; p=0.02), median length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 6 days), nurses’ workload (605 vs. 1055 points) and total costs (6,881 vs. 11,178 Swiss francs) (all p<0.01).
Conclusions
For adult patients with moderate to severe septic bursitis requiring hospital admission, bursectomy with primary closure, together with 7 days of systemic antibiotic therapy, was safe, resource-saving and effective. Using a two-stage approach did not reduce the risk of infectious recurrence, and may be associated with a higher rate of wound dehiscence than the one-stage approach.
