Arthroscopic resection of olecranon and prepatellar bursae

Kerr, Douglas R.; Carpenter, Charles W.

doi:10.1016/0749-8063(90)90003-v

Cited by 49 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most patients require surgical resection of the affected bursa for definitive treatment [4]. Endoscopic bursectomy might be a successful alternative to open surgery [8–10]. Probably, the penetration of the antimicrobial agents into the inflamed bursal tissue is suboptimal [2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapy-resistant septic olecranon bursitis due toMycobacterium gordonae

Konrads

Rückl

Tabbakh

et al. 2016

SICOT-J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Septic olecranon bursitis due to atypical mycobacteria is rare. An insidious beginning can delay diagnosis and treatment. Antibacterial therapy recommendations are not well-defined for bursitis caused by atypical mycobacteria. We present a rare case of olecranon bursitis caused by Mycobacterium gordonae, reporting our experiences regarding pathogen identification and antibiotic therapy, which differs from regimes used in common septic bursitis mostly caused by staphylococcus aureus. Methods: A 35-year-old male with bursitis olecrani received open bursectomy. Microbiological culture did not reveal bacteria. Due to wound healing complications revision surgery was performed four weeks postoperatively. Finally, Mycobacterium gordonae was identified by PCR and an antibiogram could be developed. A triple antimicrobial combination therapy with Rifampicin, Clarithromycin, and Ethambutol was administered systemically for 12 months. The patient was followed-up for 24 months. Results: After the second operation with pathogen identification and antibiotic combination therapy the wound healed without any additional complications. At last follow-up 24 months after the first surgery with bursectomy and 23 months after revision surgery with debridement, the patient was still pain free with no significant clinical findings or tenderness to touch at the operation site. Elbow range of motion was full. Discussion: As septic bursitis can be caused by many different and sometimes rare and difficult to identify bacteria, intraoperative probes should be taken and histopathological and microbiological analysis should be conducted, including PCR. In a young man with olecranon bursitis due to Mycobacterium gordonae surgical treatment and an antibiotic combination therapy showed a good clinical outcome after one and two years.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapy-resistant septic olecranon bursitis due toMycobacterium gordonae

Konrads

Rückl

Tabbakh

et al. 2016

SICOT-J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,10 Endoscopy for olecranon bursitis has previously been described. 11,12 This involves the use of an arthroscope directed into the bursal sac and an arthroscopic shaver through a proximal port to carefully resect the bursal tissue inside-out. One publication reported lower morbidity with the endoscopic technique when compared with the open.…”

Section: Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Olecranon Extrabursal Endoscopic Bursectomy

McGuire

Morse

et al. 2013

Techniques in Hand &Amp; Upper Extremity Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Olecranon bursitis is a common clinical problem. It is often managed conservatively because of the high rates of wound complications with the conventional open surgical technique. Conventional olecranon bursoscopy utilizes an arthroscope and an arthroscopic shaver, removing the bursa from inside-out. We describe an extrabursal endoscopic technique where the bursa is not entered but excised in its entirety under endoscopic vision. A satisfactory view is obtained with less morbidity than the open method, while still avoiding a wound over the sensitive point of the olecranon.

show abstract

“…Septic bursitis, aseptic bursitis, or a mixture of these were included in 16 [1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29], eight [3,14,18,21,25,28,30,31], and five studies [4,9,12,13,27], respectively. The mean follow-up interval ranged from 5.1 to 62.4 months [8, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 27, 28, 30, 31].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%