Arthroscopic Versus Open Treatment of Septic Wrist Arthritis: National Trends in Usage and Impact on Length of Stay, Reoperation, Postoperative Readmissions, and Complications

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use a national claims database to analyze trends in the usage of arthroscopic versus open irrigation and debridement of septic wrist arthritis and compare complication rates, readmission rates, and reoperation rates between the 2 treatment modalities. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was used to identify patients in the United States who underwent open or arthroscopic debridement for suspected septic wrist arthritis from 2010 to 2017. Data on patient demographics and comorbidities were obtained. Pearson’s chi-square tests were performed to compare the treatment modality to demographic data and the year of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regressions were used to measure differences in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. RESULTS: The database captured 1,145 patients who received treatment for septic arthritis of the wrist during this period. Among these, 212 (18.5%) patients underwent arthroscopic debridement and 933 (81.5%) patients underwent open debridement. Open management was more common in all ages; however, arthroscopic debridement was used more frequently in younger age groups. The proportion of open cases per year seemed to increase over the study period. In limited comparisons, no significant differences were observed in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Open irrigation and debridement was the preferred method for treatment of septic wrist arthritis in all age groups and time points in this study. No univariate differences were found between rates of readmission, complications, and reoperations between arthroscopic and open treatment modalities; however, more robust data and analyses are needed to better understand the differences between these approaches, especially across different patient groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.