Abstract
Aims
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which patient demographics, clinical presentation, and blood parameters vary in Kingella kingae septic arthritis when compared with those of other organisms, and whether this difference needs to be considered when assessing children in whom a diagnosis of septic arthritis is suspected.
Methods
A prospective case series was undertaken at a single UK paediatric institution between October 2012 and November 2018 of all patients referred with suspected septic arthritis. We recorded the clinical, biochemical, and microbiological findings in all patients.
Results
A total of 160 patients underwent arthrotomy for a presumed septic arthritis. Of these, no organism was identified in 61 and only 25 of these were both culture- and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-negative. A total of 36 patients did not undergo PCR analysis. Of the remaining 99 culture- and PCR-positive patients, K. kingae was the most commonly isolated organism (42%, n = 42). The knee (n = 21), shoulder (n = 9), and hip (n = 5) were the three most commonly affected joints. A total of 28 cases (66%) of K. kingae infection were detected only on PCR. The mean age of K. kingae-positive cases (16.1 months) was significantly lower than that of those whose septic arthitis was due to other organisms (49.4 months; p < 0.001). The mean CRP was significantly lower in the K. kingae group than in the other organism group (p < 0.001). The mean ESR/CRP ratio was significantly higher in K. kingae (2.84) than in other infections (1.55; p < 0.008). The mean ESR and ESR/CRP were not significantly different from those in the 'no organism identified' group.
Conclusion
K. kingae was the most commonly isolated organism from paediatric culture- and/or PCR-positive confirmed septic arthritis, with only one third of cases detected on routine cultures. It is important to develop and maintain a clinical suspicion for K. kingae infection in young patients presenting atypically. Routine PCR testing is recommended in these patients.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):584–588.
