RESUMOUm artigo de atualização do conhecimento sobre osteoporose corre o risco de ficar desatualizado precocemente, devido ao grande interesse que o estudo e a pesquisa sobre OP despertam hoje nos pesquisadores, nas indústrias farmacêuticas e de equipamentos, nos governos, e até na OMS. Todo ortopedista conhece a OP pelo seu efeito mais deletério, a fratura osteoporótica (FxOP). Por ser uma patologia de quadro clínico não específico a OP sem fratura não levanta suspeita. A FxOP tem um custo econômico (pelo tratamento), social (por suas sequelas) e médico (por óbitos). Muitas fraturas poderiam ser evitadas pelo diagnóstico da OP antes da primeira fratura e, então, muitas incapacidades temporárias e definitivas poderiam ser evitadas, muitas vidas poderiam ser salvas. O conhecimento dos fatores de risco para osteoporose desperta a suspeita e a densitometria óssea ajuda no diagnóstico. O tratamento deve ter por base a fisiopatologia da doença. Assim, na prevenção ou no tratamento da OP, devemos diminuir a atividade do osteoclasto ou aumentar a atividade do osteoblasto, ou os dois. O tratamento ideal é aquele que diminui a incidência de fraturas por melhorar a geometria do osso e sua microarquitetura. O tecido ósseo recém-formado deve ter boa qualidade celular e de matriz, mineralização normal com boa proporção entre osso mineralizado (resistente mecanicamente) e não mineralizado (flexível) e sem acúmulo de danos. O tratamento ideal deve ter taxa de remodelação positiva e efeito terapêutico rápido e duradouro. Este efeito deve ser facilmente detectável. Deve ser seguro.

Articles that update the state of knowledge regarding osteoporosis run the risk of quickly becoming obsolete because research and studies on osteoporosis today are arousing great interest among researchers, the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries, governments and even WHO. All orthopedists know about osteoporosis because of its most deleterious effect: osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporosis without fractures does not arouse suspicion because this is a pathological condition with a nonspecific clinical profile. Osteoporotic fractures have an economic cost (from treatment), a social cost (from its sequelae) and a medical cost (from deaths). Many fractures could be avoided through diagnosing osteoporosis prior to the first fracture and thus many temporary and permanent disabilities could be avoided and many lives saved. Awareness of the risk factors for osteoporosis raises suspicions and bone densitometry aids in diagnosis. Treatment should be based on the physiopathology of the disease. Hence, for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis, the activity of osteoclasts should be diminished or the activity of osteoblasts should be increased, or both. Treatment that reduces the incidence of fractures by improving the bone geometry and microarchitecture would be ideal. Newly formed bone tissue needs to have good cell and matrix quality, normal mineralization, a good ratio between mineralized (mechanically resistant) and non-mineralized (flexible) bone, and no accumulated damage. The ideal treatment should have a positive remodeling rate and fast and long-lasting therapeutic effects. Such effects need to be easily detectable. They need to be safe.

ResumoA população brasileira está envelhecendo, e com isso aumenta a prevalência de doenças crônico-degenerativas, dentre elas a osteoporose. O diagnóstico e tratamento da osteoporose teve avanços significativos na última década. O ortopedista e traumatologista não pode mais se deter apenas no tratamento cirúrgico da fratura osteoporótica. É extremamente importante que saibamos: 1) quais fatores de risco avaliar, podendo ser utilizada a ferramenta Fracture Risk Assesment Tool (FRAX, na sigla em inglês); 2) quais exames complementares solicitar, como densitometria, radiografia da coluna e bacia, exames de sangue e urina, e até mesmo biópsia óssea; 3) quais suplementos utilizar, como cálcio e magnésio, vitaminas D e K; 4) quais medicamentos prescrever, antirreabsortivos ou formadores, janelas terapêuticas e eventos adversos.

Objective: The Brazilian Consensus on Hip Viscosupplementation aims to generate a referential and consensual source from the theoretical knowledge and clinical experience of specialists in the field. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel was formed with 15 specialists (sports medicine, orthopedists, physiatrists and rheumatologists), based on clinical and academic experience in the use of viscosupplementation of the hip. 12 statements were prepared, discussed and voted. Each panelist gave a value between 0 and 10 on a Likert scale, specifying their level of agreement with the statement. Results: The panel reached a consensus on several aspects of viscosupplementation of the hip, with emphasis on the following statements: best indication is for mild to moderate hip arthrosis; it may be indicated in severe osteoarthritis; results may vary according to the characteristics of the viscosupplement used; Viscosupplementation should not be performed as an isolated procedure, but in conjunction with other rehabilitation and pharmacological measures; best injection technique should be based on anatomical references coupled with imaging guidance; it is a cost-effective procedure. Conclusion: Viscosupplementation is a safe and effective therapy for hip osteoarthritis, even in severe cases. Guided injection is recommended. Level of Evidence V, Expert Opinion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a difference on the bone architecture in patients with femoral neck fracture compared to patients with intertrochanteric fractures and assess the importance of aging on bone microarchitecture in patients with proximal femoral fracture. METHODS: Biopsy of the iliac crest was made in seventeen patients between 55 and 90 years old who were admitted to the emergency room with fractures of the proximal end of the femur. After a small fragment was removed, we made a histomorphometric analysis of it. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between patients with femoral neck fracture and trochanteric fracture in structural parameters, formation and resorption. Comparing age groups we also did not find any significant change between the groups in the parameters volume and trabecular separation. CONCLUSION: There are no difference in the morphometric parameters analyzed between the different types of fracture and age is not a significant factor in the alteration of these parameters. Level of Evidence II, Diagnostic Studies.