Surgical Management of a Large Chronic Prepatellar Bursitis: 2-Stage Technique

Surgical Management of a Large Chronic Prepatellar Bursitis: 2-Stage Technique: Treatment of a large chronic prepatellar bursitis can be difficult to manage surgically because of a high rate of local complications and a significant chance of recurrence. We present a 2-stage technique using negative pressure dressings which produced a good outcome with no recurrence at one year after surgery.

1. Introduction

Inflammation of the prepatellar bursa is a common condition, especially in males. It is typically caused by repetitive injury and often seen in patients whose occupation involves kneeling. It is referred to by various eponymous names such as clergyman’s knee and housemaid’s knee. Acute inflammation can settle with the well-established nonoperative treatment algorithm of rest, ice, activity limitation, and anti-inflammatories [1].

Inflammation can however become chronic with the swelling becoming large and problematic. Surgical intervention is reserved for severe refractory cases. Open and endoscopic bursectomy procedures have been described [2–4]. Most of the techniques described in the literature are focused on septic prepatellar and olecranon bursitis. Recurrence rates have been reported as high as 20%. Complications of the open approach include wound haematoma, scar tenderness, damage to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve, seroma formation, and skin necrosis [5–7]. Endoscopic procedures are performed through multiple portals and can be effective in terms of postoperative recovery and cosmesis. However, the complication of recurrence remains due to inadequate excision of the bursal tissue [8]. There is also a risk of damage to the patellar tendon [9].

Surgical excision can place the skin overlying the knee at risk of vascular compromise as the anterior wall of the bursa is usually adherent to the skin. One way to reduce this risk is to excise posterior wall only but risk of recurrence still remains [10].

We present a successful 2-stage open technique using negative pressure dressings for a large chronic prepatellar bursitis.

2. Case Report

A 62-year-old joiner presented with 2-year history of a painless swelling over his right knee. It was occasionally tender to kneel on; however, it was the large size of the lesion that was his main problem (Figure 1). It was smooth and fluctuant. He had no limitation in knee movement. Plain radiographs did not show any bony abnormality.

Figure 1: Lesion.

A MRI scan (Figure 2) revealed a cystic lesion measuring , anterior to the patellar tendon. There was no evidence of malignancy. Informed consent has been obtained from the patient to publish clinical photographs and radiological imaging.

Figure 2: MRI scan of lesion.

3. Surgical Technique

A well-circumscribed lesion was excised along with an ellipse of the skin (Figure 3). A vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) (©KCI Medical) dressing was applied (Figure 4). The patient returned to theatre after 48 hours and underwent primary closure of the wound using deep absorbable sutures to the subcutaneous layer and interrupted nylon sutures to the skin. A second negative pressure dressing, PICO© (Smith & Nephew), was applied over the wound for one week (Figure 5). He was allowed to weight bear as able and knee flexion was not restricted.

Figure 3: Excised lesion.

Figure 4: Application of VAC dressing.

Figure 5: PICO dressing.

The nylon sutures were removed at 2 weeks and he returned to work 1 week after this. He was advised not to kneel for four weeks. Histological examination confirmed a benign chronic inflammatory bursitis. He was reviewed at 1 year following his operation. His wound has healed without any complications (Figure 6). He did not have any recurrence of his bursitis, he was pain free and kneeling at work as a full-time joiner with no problems.

Figure 6: Surgical scar at 1 year.

4. Discussion

Surgical management is reserved for refractory cases of prepatellar and olecranon bursae. Both open and endoscopic treatments had been described. Skin compromise is a devastating complication following surgical excision [2, 11, 12].

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has transformed management of complex wounds with its efficacy being proven extensively in the literature [13–15]. It has various beneficial mechanisms of action including reducing tissue oedema and wound tension, eliminating “dead space,” increasing wound perfusion, reducing movement at the skin edges, and possibly upregulating growth factors [16, 17]. In this case, we believe the 48 hours of NPWT created a vascular bed of granulation tissue that bonded together when primarily closed eliminating potential dead space and thus avoiding potential seroma formation and subsequent recurrence. The second negative pressure dressing (PICO) reduced the inevitable movement and increased tension about the wound when the knee flexed. This effectively splinted the wound without having to restrict knee movement.

We therefore recommend a 2-stage open surgical technique using negative pressure dressings to treat a large chronic prepatellar bursitis.

Consent

Consent had been obtained from the patient for the use of data in this report (clinical photographs and radiological images). The images are available from the authors for review but they cannot be used for other publications.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

1. S. F. Baumbach, C. M. Lobo, I. Badyine, W. Mutschler, and K. G. Kanz, “Prepatellar and olecranon bursitis: literature review and development of a treatment algorithm,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 359–370, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
2. I. Uçkay, E. von Dach, C. Perez et al., “One- vs 2-stage bursectomy for septic olecranon and prepatellar bursitis: a prospective randomized trial,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 1061–1069, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
3. A. Yıldırım, A. Kapukaya, Y. Mertsoy, S. Yiğit, and M. A. Çaçan, “Treatment of nonseptic bursitis with endoscopic surgery,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 220–223, 2015. View at Google Scholar
4. P. Nussbaumer, C. Candrian, and A. Hollinger, “Endoscopic bursa shaving in acute bursitis,” Swiss Surgery, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 121–125, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
5. C. Bailey and G. Keene, “Arthroscopic prepatellar bursectomy,” The Internet Journal of Orthopedic Surgery, vol. 8, no. 1, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
6. J. D. Gendernalik and V. F. Sechriest II, “Prepatellar septic bursitis: a case report of skin necrosis associated with open bursectomy,” Military Medicine, vol. 174, no. 6, pp. 666–669, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
7. Y. C. Huang and W. L. Yeh, “Endoscopic treatment of prepatellar bursitis,” International Orthopaedics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 355–358, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
8. D. J. Ogilvie-Harris and M. Gilbart, “Endoscopic bursal resection: the olecranon bursa and prepatellar bursa,” Arthroscopy, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 249–253, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
9. D. M. Epstein, C. M. Capeci, and A. S. Rokito, “Patella tendon rupture after arthroscopic resection of the prepatellar bursa--a case report,” Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 307–310, 2010. View at Google Scholar
10. J. B. Quayle and M. P. Robinson, “An operation for chronic prepatellar bursitis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British Volume (London), vol. 58-B, no. 4, pp. 504–506, 1976. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
11. N. V. Kumar, V. S. Sundar, S. Ramu, and V. C. Noel, “A case report on chronic massive prepatellar bursa,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 170–172, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
12. G. Meric, S. Sargin, A. Atik, A. Budeyri, and A. E. Ulusal, “Endoscopic versus open bursectomy for prepatellar and olecranon bursitis,” Cureus, vol. 10, no. 3, article e2374, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
13. L. C. Argenta, M. J. Morykwas, M. W. Marks, A. J. DeFranzo, J. A. Molnar, and L. R. David, “Vacuum-assisted closure: state of clinic art,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 117, 7 Suppl, pp. 127S–142S, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
14. D. V. Kilpadi and M. R. Cunningham, “Evaluation of closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): hematoma/seroma and involvement of the lymphatic system,” Wound Repair and Regeneration, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 588–596, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
15. G. Walter, M. Kemmerer, and R. Hoffmann, “Treatment of septic olecranon and patellar bursitis by excision and vacuum-assisted closure therapy,” Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 353–357, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
16. S. Karlakki, M. Brem, S. Giannini, V. Khanduja, J. Stannard, and R. Martin, “Negative pressure wound therapy for management of the surgical incision in orthopaedic surgery: a review of evidence and mechanisms for an emerging indication,” Bone & Joint Research, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 276–284, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
17. M. Pachowsky, J. Gusinde, A. Klein et al., “Negative pressure wound therapy to prevent seromas and treat surgical incisions after total hip arthroplasty,” International Orthopaedics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 719–722, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus