• Upper extremity arthritis in children can be treated with joint aspiration, arthroscopy or arthrotomy, followed by antibiotics. The literature seems inconclusive with respect to the optimal drainage technique. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to identify the most effective drainage technique for septic arthritis of the upper extremity in children.

• Two independent investigators systematically searched the electronic MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for original articles that reported outcomes of aspiration, arthroscopy or arthrotomy for septic arthritis of the paediatric shoulder or elbow. Outcome parameters were clinical improvement, need for repetitive surgery or drainage, and complications.

• Out of 2428 articles, seven studies with a total of 171 patients treated by aspiration or arthrotomy were included in the systematic review. Five studies reported on shoulder septic arthritis, one study on elbow septic arthritis, and one study on both joints. All studies were retrospective, except for one randomized prospective study. No difference was found between type of treatment and radiological or clinical outcomes. Aspiration of the shoulder or elbow joint required an additional procedure in 44% of patients, while arthrotomy required 12% additional procedures.

• Conclusion: Both aspiration and arthrotomy can achieve good clinical results in children with septic arthritis of the shoulder or elbow joint. However, the scientific quality of the included studies is low. It seems that the first procedure can be aspiration and washout and start of intravenous antibiotics, knowing that aspiration may have a higher risk of additional drainage procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:651-657. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200122

• Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.

• All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.

• Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).

• Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095