A comprehensive review of septic arthritis. Causes, diagnosis, and treatment approaches

Nº de DOI: 10.34896/RSI.2025.63.90.001

AUTHORS

1. Dayana Guadalupe Méndez Cárdenas. General Practitioner. Attached to the Type C Health Center of Muisne. Independent Researcher of the Research and Teaching Department Matilde Hidalgo of Procel. Graduated from the Central University of Ecuador. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4125-9275
2. Karla Estrella España Cuasapaz. General Practitioner. Attached to the 8th San Isidro Health Center. Graduated from the National University of Chimborazo. (Tulcán -Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5784-9967
3. William Fernando Córdova Pastás. General Practitioner. Master in Public Health. Attached to the Polytechnic State University of Carchi. Graduated from UTE University. (San Gabriel-Ecuador) https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1847-4797
4. Valeria Valentina Satama Andrade. General Practitioner. Attached to the Centro de Salud Casa Cuna Gangotena. Graduated from the Universidad Nacional de Loja. (⁠Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0213-8492
5. Pablo Andres Montaño Ucho. General Practitioner. Attached to the Pablo Jaramillo Crespo Humanitarian Hospital Foundation. Graduated from the University of Cuenca. (⁠Cuenca-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5216-3561
6. María José Bravo Cofre. General Practitioner. Attached to Private Clinics of Ecuador. Graduated from the University of Guayaquil. (⁠Guayaquil-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4737-4410
7. Carlos Alejandro Rojas Merchán. General Practitioner. Attached to Private Clinics of Ecuador. Graduated from the Catholic University of Cuenca. (Azogues-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4901

ABSTRACT

This comprehensive review aims to synthesize the current understanding of the causes, diagnostic strategies, and treatment approaches for septic arthritis, highlighting the importance of early intervention in improving patient outcomes and reducing the burden of this serious condition.

KEY WORDS

Septic arthritis pathophysiology, infectious arthritis diagnosis, microbiological causes of septic arthritis, and treatment strategies for septic arthritis.

RESUMEN

Esta revisión exhaustiva tiene como objetivo sintetizar la comprensión actual de las causas, las estrategias de diagnóstico y los enfoques de tratamiento para la artritis séptica, destacando la importancia de la intervención temprana para mejorar los resultados de los pacientes y reducir la carga de esta grave enfermedad.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Fisiopatología de la artritis séptica, diagnóstico de la artritis infecciosa, causas microbiológicas de la artritis séptica y estrategias de tratamiento para la artritis séptica.

INTRODUCTION

Septic arthritis is a complex and potentially debilitating condition characterized by the inflammation of a joint due to infection, often leading to joint destruction and significant morbidity if not promptly diagnosed and treated. This condition can arise from various pathogens, with bacteria being the most prominent culprits, and is often exacerbated by underlying risk factors such as age, pre-existing health conditions, and immunosuppression, which can predispose individuals to infection. The sources of infection are diverse, ranging from hematogenous spread from distant sites, such as skin infections or endocarditis, to direct inoculation following trauma or surgery. Clinically, septic arthritis presents with a constellation of symptoms, including acute joint pain, swelling, and fever, necessitating a high index of suspicion for timely diagnosis. The diagnostic process is multifaceted, often involving physical examination, advanced imaging techniques, and critical laboratory investigations such as synovial fluid analysis and blood cultures, which are essential in confirming the diagnosis and guiding treatment. Once diagnosed, the management of septic arthritis typically involves a combination of empirical antibiotic therapy tailored to the identified pathogens, with surgical intervention being indicated in cases of abscess formation or joint destruction. Effective treatment also necessitates vigilant patient monitoring and follow-up to ensure resolution of the infection and to prevent complications.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise current knowledge on the causes, diagnostic strategies and therapeutic approaches to septic arthritis.

METHODOLOGY

This scientific review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of septic arthritis by examining its causes, diagnostic methods, and treatment approaches. A systematic search is conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published in the last two decades. The search strategy incorporates key terms such as “septic arthritis pathophysiology”, “infectious arthritis diagnosis”, “microbiological causes of septic arthritis” and “treatment strategies for septic arthritis” to ensure a broad yet focused selection of literature.

The review categorizes findings into three main sections: causes, diagnosis, and treatment approaches. The etiology of septic arthritis is examined by reviewing literature on bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens, with a particular focus on common causative agents such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus species. Risk factors, including immunosuppression, pre-existing joint disease, and recent surgical procedures, are analyzed to determine their role in disease susceptibility.

Diagnostic methodologies are assessed based on their sensitivity, specificity, and clinical applicability. The review evaluates traditional approaches such as synovial fluid analysis, Gram staining, and culture testing, as well as emerging diagnostic technologies, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and advanced imaging techniques like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Comparative analyses of these methods help establish their diagnostic value and limitations in different clinical settings.

The treatment section focuses on evidence-based strategies for managing septic arthritis, including antimicrobial therapy, surgical intervention, and supportive care. The efficacy of empiric antibiotic regimens is analyzed based on pathogen-specific data and antimicrobial resistance patterns. Studies comparing different surgical techniques, such as arthroscopic lavage, open debridement, and joint aspiration, are included to determine the most effective intervention strategies. Additionally, rehabilitation protocols and long-term patient outcomes are reviewed to assess the impact of treatment approaches on joint function and overall recovery.

This methodology ensures a structured and evidence-based review of septic arthritis, providing valuable insights for healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers. The findings aim to enhance early diagnosis, improve treatment efficacy, and optimize patient outcomes through a better understanding of the disease’s pathophysiology, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic advancements.

RESULTS

Causes of Septic Arthritis

What are the primary pathogens responsible for septic arthritis?

The primary pathogens responsible for septic arthritis encompass a diverse array of microorganisms, with Staphylococcus aureus being the most prevalent etiological agent, particularly in Europe and in nongonococcal cases in the United States^1,2. This bacterium is frequently isolated in both adult and pediatric populations suffering from septic arthritis, underscoring its significant role in the disease’s pathogenesis³. In sexually active young adults, Neisseria gonorrhoeae stands out as another critical pathogen, highlighting the importance of considering patient demographics when diagnosing and treating septic arthritis¹. Furthermore, Streptococcus species, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae, are also commonly implicated, especially in immunocompromised patients who are more susceptible to a broader range of pathogens^1,2. Additionally, gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa contribute to a substantial portion of septic arthritis cases, particularly in individuals with specific risk factors like intravenous drug use or extremes of age². While bacterial infections dominate the landscape of septic arthritis, opportunistic organisms, including fungi, can also be responsible, especially in immunocompromised hosts, necessitating a comprehensive diagnostic approach to effectively identify and manage the infection¹. Addressing septic arthritis thus requires an understanding of the varied pathogens involved and a tailored approach to treatment based on the patient’s risk factors and underlying conditions.

How do risk factors like age, pre-existing conditions, and immunosuppression contribute to septic arthritis?

In addition to the type of pathogens involved, various risk factors significantly contribute to the development of septic arthritis. Age is a prominent determinant, with both infants and older adults showing a higher susceptibility. For instance, the incidence of septic arthritis peaks in children, particularly between the ages of 2 and 3 years, and adults over the age of 80 are also at an increased risk¹. Pre-existing conditions further exacerbate this vulnerability. Individuals with diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis, for instance, are notably more prone to developing septic arthritis, highlighting the interplay between chronic diseases and joint infections¹. Additionally, people with kidney and liver problems are at a greater risk due to the systemic effects these conditions have on the body’s ability to fend off infections. Immunosuppression, whether due to underlying health conditions like sickle cell anemia or acquired conditions like HIV infection, further elevates the risk. The use of immunosuppressive drugs and treatments, such as chemotherapy, also compromises the immune system, making patients more susceptible to septic arthritis¹. This complex interplay of factors underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring and prompt intervention for at-risk populations, as early treatment is crucial in preventing severe joint damage and preserving function.

What are the common sources of infection leading to septic arthritis?

The most common sources of infection leading to septic arthritis are primarily bacterial, with Staphylococcus aureus being the predominant culprit, responsible for the majority of cases in adults^4,5. This pathogen is particularly notorious for invading native joints, often following skin infections or post-surgical wounds, highlighting the interconnected nature of various anatomical sites in the development of septic arthritis^3,6. Furthermore, strains of Streptococci bacteria follow closely behind, contributing significantly to native joint infections and presenting a substantial risk, especially after skin or respiratory infections^4,5. In adolescents and young adults, the sexually transmitted pathogen Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a notable agent, underscoring the importance of considering patient age and lifestyle factors when diagnosing septic arthritis^4,5. Additionally, gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli are significant pathogens among older populations, particularly those with underlying health conditions, thereby necessitating a tailored approach to managing elderly patients with suspected septic arthritis⁵. Though less common, fungal infections and various viruses, including chikungunya and rubella, also play a role in the pathogenesis of septic arthritis, further broadening the spectrum of potential infectious agents^4,5. Given this diversity of pathogens, clinicians must adopt a comprehensive diagnostic strategy that encompasses bacterial, fungal, and viral sources to effectively manage and treat septic arthritis.

Diagnosis of Septic Arthritis:

What are the clinical symptoms and signs indicative of septic arthritis?

Septic arthritis presents with a constellation of clinical symptoms and signs that, when considered together, can significantly aid in its diagnosis. One of the hallmark symptoms is acute atraumatic joint pain, which necessitates the consideration of septic arthritis in any differential diagnosis of sudden joint discomfort⁵. This pain is often severe and exacerbated by any movement of the affected joint, underscoring the inflammatory nature of the condition⁵. Swelling of the joint is another critical clinical symptom, often accompanied by an obvious effusion, which can be detected through physical examination⁵. Additionally, fever is a key systemic sign that frequently coexists with these local symptoms, further suggesting the presence of septic arthritis⁵. Despite these indicative symptoms, the clinical presentation can be more subtle in certain populations, such as those with periprosthetic joint infections, small joint infections, or those who are immunosuppressed, highlighting the necessity of a thorough and nuanced clinical evaluation⁵. Given these overlapping symptoms, differentiating septic arthritis from other causes of monoarticular joint pain is crucial, particularly in native joints which are commonly affected⁵. In summary, a combination of acute atraumatic joint pain, swelling, effusion, and fever should prompt immediate clinical suspicion and further investigation for septic arthritis.

What diagnostic tests and imaging techniques are most effective in confirming septic arthritis?

To effectively confirm a diagnosis of septic arthritis, a combination of clinical evaluation, laboratory analysis, and imaging techniques is imperative. Clinical examination findings play a crucial role in the initial assessment, helping to identify signs and symptoms indicative of septic arthritis⁷. However, to definitively diagnose the condition, joint fluid aspiration, or arthrocentesis, is essential. This procedure is typically performed to obtain synovial fluid for culture, which remains the gold standard for confirming septic arthritis^7,8. The synovial fluid is subjected to various tests, including Gram stain and cell counts, which provide vital diagnostic information; Gram stains, for instance, can detect the presence of bacteria in approximately 40% to 70% of cases, while synovial fluid cultures yield positive results in 40% to 55% of cases^7,9. In situations where joint aspiration is challenging due to the joint’s location or lack of effusion, imaging guidance becomes indispensable. Techniques such as ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans not only assist in guiding the needle for aspiration but also help in evaluating the extent of the infection and identifying other potential issues like osteomyelitis^7,8,10. Specifically, MRI is highly valuable for its detailed visualization capabilities, which make it particularly useful for examining complex joints like the hip, shoulder, and sacroiliac joints⁸. For joints that are difficult to assess with plain films, such as the sternoclavicular and sacroiliac joints, CT scanning provides an alternative imaging modality that can reveal early signs of septic arthritis, such as synovial thickening and joint effusion^8,10. In conclusion, the diagnostic approach to septic arthritis involves a multi-faceted strategy that integrates clinical assessment, synovial fluid analysis, and advanced imaging techniques. The choice of diagnostic modality should be tailored to the patient’s specific clinical scenario, ensuring the most accurate and timely diagnosis. This comprehensive approach is critical for initiating appropriate treatment and improving patient outcomes.

How can laboratory findings (e.g., synovial fluid analysis, blood cultures) aid in diagnosing septic arthritis?

The role of laboratory findings in diagnosing septic arthritis is multifaceted and essential for accurate identification and treatment of the condition. Synovial fluid analysis remains a cornerstone in the diagnostic process, as it can distinguish septic arthritis from other types of arthritis through detailed examination of factors such as color, clarity, viscosity, and white blood cell counts¹¹. Injection of synovial fluid into blood culture bottles is considered the gold standard for diagnosis, significantly improving the likelihood of isolating the causative pathogen¹². Furthermore, blood cultures are indispensable and should be performed in all suspected cases of septic arthritis because they can identify the etiologic agent when synovial fluid cultures yield negative results¹¹. Despite the value of synovial fluid analysis and blood cultures, other laboratory tests, such as elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), although indicative of inflammation, have poor specificity and cannot definitively diagnose septic arthritis on their own¹¹. Therefore, a combination of clinical assessments and comprehensive laboratory testing, including synovial fluid analysis and blood cultures, is crucial for an accurate diagnosis¹¹. This integrated approach ensures that clinicians can effectively identify and treat septic arthritis, reducing the risk of misdiagnosis and improving patient outcomes.

Treatment Approaches for Septic Arthritis:

What are the first-line antibiotic treatments for septic arthritis, and how are they selected?

The first-line antibiotic treatments for septic arthritis are chosen based on multiple factors, including the suspected pathogen and the results of initial Gram staining and cultures. Prompt administration of antibiotics is crucial in managing septic arthritis to prevent joint damage and systemic complications¹³. Empirical antibiotic treatment typically begins with broad-spectrum antibiotics that cover the most likely pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus, which is the most common cause of septic arthritis¹⁴. For example, intravenous (IV) vancomycin or daptomycin is often employed as first-line treatment due to their effectiveness against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ⁵. The duration of IV antibiotic therapy generally spans two weeks, after which patients may be transitioned to oral antibiotics for an additional one to two weeks, depending on clinical response and laboratory findings¹⁴. The initial choice of antibiotics may be further refined based on the results of synovial fluid analysis and culture, allowing for targeted antimicrobial therapy that is more specific to the identified pathogen¹³. Moreover, in cases involving immunocompromised patients or when Gram stain results are negative, a third-generation cephalosporin, such as ceftriaxone, may be added to provide additional coverage for gram-negative bacteria¹. This systematic approach ensures comprehensive management of septic arthritis, emphasizing the need for timely and appropriately tailored antibiotic regimens.

What are the indications for surgical intervention in the management of septic arthritis?

When considering the indications for surgical intervention in the management of septic arthritis, it is crucial to weigh the effectiveness and necessity of such procedures against the outcomes of less invasive methods. Although initial surgical treatment does not show superiority over serial needle aspirations based on the current data, the choice between these approaches often relies on the treating physician’s experience and judgment¹⁵. Moreover, the standard therapeutic modality for septic arthritis typically involves the drainage of the affected joint, which can be accomplished through surgical procedures such as arthroscopy or arthrotomy¹⁵. However, the decision to opt for surgical intervention must also factor in cases where patients show poor progress after initial medical treatment. For instance, approximately 30% of patients required surgery following inadequate response to initial medical therapy, highlighting the need for more aggressive intervention when conservative methods fail¹⁵. Furthermore, the presence of corticosteroid treatment in about 30% of patients in the medical group could be a contributing factor that influences the need for surgical intervention, potentially due to its impact on the immune response and infection resolution¹⁵. These considerations underline the necessity of a tailored approach in managing septic arthritis, ensuring timely intervention to prevent irreversible joint damage and optimize patient outcomes¹⁵.

How important is the role of patient monitoring and follow-up in ensuring the effectiveness of the treatment for septic arthritis?

Patient monitoring and follow-up play a critical role in ensuring the effectiveness of treatment for septic arthritis, primarily because they enable early detection and management of potential complications. Close monitoring after the initiation of treatment is essential to observe clinical improvement and to identify any signs of treatment failure, which necessitates further evaluation or a change in therapy¹⁶. This is particularly important since septic arthritis can lead to severe complications such as cartilage damage, growth disturbances, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head if not properly managed¹⁷. Additionally, ongoing follow-up with an orthopedic surgeon for a minimum of two years is recommended to detect long-term sequelae and ensure that any delayed complications are promptly addressed¹⁷. Long-term follow-up allows for the early diagnosis and intervention of these sequelae, which can significantly improve long-term outcomes for patients¹⁷. Overall, the integration of vigilant monitoring and consistent follow-up into the treatment protocol for septic arthritis is essential to mitigate risks, manage complications, and enhance patient recovery.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this comprehensive review on septic arthritis underscore the critical need for a multifaceted approach to its diagnosis and management, particularly in light of the diverse pathogens involved and the varying risk factors present in different patient populations. The predominance of Staphylococcus aureus and the significant role of gram-negative bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, highlight the complexity of septic arthritis, particularly in high-risk groups such as the elderly, immunocompromised individuals, and those with underlying chronic conditions like diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. This necessitates a tailored treatment strategy that considers both the microbial landscape and the unique health profiles of patients. The review emphasizes the importance of comprehensive diagnostic protocols, including synovial fluid analysis and blood cultures, to ensure accurate identification of the causative pathogens, especially in cases where initial cultures yield negative results. Furthermore, the identification of Neisseria gonorrhoeae as a key pathogen in sexually active young adults illustrates the necessity of integrating demographic and lifestyle factors into the diagnostic process. While this review provides a thorough overview of the current understanding of septic arthritis, it also highlights gaps in the literature, such as the need for further research into the long-term outcomes of patients and the efficacy of various treatment modalities. Additionally, the potential biases in existing studies, particularly regarding the underrepresentation of certain demographic groups, should be addressed in future research to ensure that treatment guidelines are inclusive and applicable across diverse populations. In conclusion, the proactive monitoring and timely intervention strategies discussed herein are crucial for mitigating the risks associated with septic arthritis and improving patient outcomes, reinforcing the imperative for clinicians to remain vigilant in their diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to this potentially debilitating condition.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Septic arthritis remains a serious medical condition requiring prompt diagnosis and effective treatment to prevent severe joint damage, disability, and systemic complications. This review highlights the multifaceted nature of septic arthritis, emphasizing its infectious etiology, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic approaches. Bacterial pathogens, particularly Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus species, remain the primary causative agents, with immunosuppressed individuals and those with pre-existing joint disease being at higher risk. Early identification of risk factors is crucial in preventing disease progression and improving patient outcomes.
2. Despite advancements in diagnostic techniques, septic arthritis remains a clinical challenge due to its nonspecific presentation and the need for rapid intervention. Synovial fluid analysis, including Gram staining, culture, and white blood cell count, remains the gold standard for diagnosis. However, emerging molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and advanced imaging techniques like MRI and ultrasound provide improved diagnostic accuracy, particularly in atypical or culture-negative cases. Expanding access to these diagnostic tools in diverse healthcare settings is essential for early detection and timely intervention.
3. The cornerstone of septic arthritis treatment remains a combination of antimicrobial therapy and joint drainage. Empirical antibiotic regimens must be initiated promptly based on suspected pathogens, with adjustments made according to culture results and resistance patterns. Surgical interventions, including arthroscopic lavage, open debridement, and repeated joint aspiration, play a vital role in infection control, particularly in severe or refractory cases. Rehabilitation strategies, including physical therapy, are crucial for restoring joint function and preventing long-term complications such as osteoarthritis and chronic pain.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

1. Despite these treatment advancements, challenges persist in managing septic arthritis effectively. Delayed diagnosis, increasing antimicrobial resistance, and variations in surgical approaches contribute to discrepancies in patient outcomes. Future research should focus on optimizing treatment algorithms, improving early detection methods, and exploring novel therapeutic agents to enhance recovery rates and minimize long-term disability. Additionally, increasing awareness among healthcare providers and developing standardized treatment protocols can further improve patient prognosis.

REFERENCES

1. Momodu II, Savaliya V. Septic Arthritis [Internet]. PubMed. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538176/
2. Shirtliff ME, Mader JT. Acute Septic Arthritis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews [Internet]. 2002 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Nov 6];15(4):527–44. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC126863/
3. Cleveland Clinic. Septic Arthritis: What Is It, Symptoms, Treatment & Causes [Internet]. Cleveland Clinic. 2021 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22418-septic-arthritis
4. Carteron N. Infectious (septic) arthritis: Causes, symptoms, treatment, and risks [Internet]. www.medicalnewstoday.com. 2018 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323049
5. Earwood JS, Walker TR, Sue GJC. Septic Arthritis: Diagnosis and Treatment. American Family Physician [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Nov 6];104(6):589–97. Available from: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/1200/p589.html
6. Versus Arthritis. Septic arthritis [Internet]. Versus Arthritis. 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://versusarthritis.org/about-arthritis/conditions/septic-arthritis/
7. Matteson EL, Osmon DR. Infections of Bursae, Joints, and Bones. Goldman’s Cecil Medicine [Internet]. 2012 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Nov 6];2(1):1731–6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9781437716047002803
8. Dolitsky R, DePaola K, Fernicola J, Collins C. Pediatric Musculoskeletal Infections. Pediatric Clinics of North America [Internet]. 2020 Feb [cited 2023 Jan 7];67(1):59–69. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031395519301269
9. He M, Vithran A, Pan L, Zeng H, Yang G, Lu B, et al. An update on recent progress of the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of acute septic arthritis: A review. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology [Internet]. 2023 May 2 [cited 2024 Nov 6];13(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1193645
10. Nunez Atahualpa L. Septic Arthritis Imaging: Practice Essentials, Radiography, Ultrasonography. eMedicine [Internet]. 2021 Sep 24 [cited 2024 Nov 6];2(1). Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/395381-overview
11. Gottlieb M, Holladay D, Rice M. Current Approach to the Evaluation and Management of Septic Arthritis. Pediatric Emergency Care [Internet]. 2019 Jul [cited 2024 Nov 6];35(7):509–13. Available from: https://cme.lww.com/ovidfiles/00006565-201907000-00010.pdf
12. Partsch G, Franz M, Gruber R, Thomas L. Synovial fluid [Internet]. Clinical-laboratory-diagnostics.com. Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.clinical-laboratory-diagnostics.com/k49.html
13. Mathews CJ, Kingsley G, Field M, Jones A, Weston VC, Phillips M, et al. Management of septic arthritis: a systematic review. Postgraduate Medical Journal [Internet]. 2008 May 1 [cited 2024 Nov 6];84(991):265–70. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1856038/
14. Cafasso J. How Is Septic Arthritis Treated? [Internet]. Healthline. Healthline Media; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 7]. Available from: https://www.healthline.com/health/arthritis/septic-arthritis-treatment
15. Flores-Robles BJ, Jiménez Palop M, Sanabria Sanchinel AA, Andrus RF, Royuela Vicente A, Sanz Pérez MI, et al. Medical Versus Surgical Approach to Initial Treatment in Septic Arthritis. JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology [Internet]. 2019 Jan [cited 2024 Nov 6];25(1):4–8. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7654724/
16. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Septic Arthritis [Internet]. www.chop.edu. 2014 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/septic-arthritis
17. Wall C. Septic arthritis in children. Australian Family Physician [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2024 Nov 6];44(4). Available from: https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2015/april/septic-arthritis-in-children