The use of hip injection (HI) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) has gained wide popularity. The relatively low cost, fast and simple method of pain relief are amongst its many advantages. Over time, the content of the injection has also evolved from local anesthetic (LA) agents to corticosteroids (CSs), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). [1] The scope of use of injections in the hip region has grown from traditional aspiration to therapeutic injections. The two main substances used in recent Hip injection (HI) for osteoarthritis (OA) are in vogue nowadays. Corticosteroids (CSs) and hyaluronic acid (HA) gel are the two most common agents injected into the hip. Off late, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), local anesthetic (LA) agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and their different combinations have also been injected in hips to provide desired pain relief. However, there is a group of clinicians who vary of these injections. A search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ using the keywords "hip osteoarthritis injection". Data were analyzed and compiled. Intraarticular CSs are effective in providing the desired pain relief in OA hip, but repeated injections should be avoided and the interval between HI and hip arthroplasty must be kept for more than three months. Methylprednisolone or triamcinolone are combined with 1% lidocaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. Chondrotoxic effects of LA is a concern. Although national guidelines do not favor the use of HA for hip OA, numerous publications have favored its usage for a moderate grade of OA. The PRP, MSC, and BMAC are treatment options with great potential; however, currently, the evidence is conflicting on their role in hip OA. There is always a risk of septic arthritis, particularly when aseptic precautions are not followed, and clinicians must vary of this complication.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic significance of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) values in patients with osteosarcoma. Patients and methods: A total of 172 patients (111 males, 61 females; mean age: 24.3±15.3 years; range, 7 to 82 years) diagnosed with osteosarcoma in our institution between January 2002 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 165 healthy individuals (115 males, 50 females; mean age: 20.2±9.2 years; range, 10 to 65 years) who did not have infectious, rheumatological or hematological diseases or any pathological finding were assigned as the control group. The clinical, laboratory, and demographic findings of the patients were obtained from hospital records. Pre-treatment NLR, PLR, and LMR values were calculated in all patients. Diagnostic and prognostic values of pre-treatment NLR, PLR and LMR were assessed using receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Results: For diagnostic approach, the highest significance in area under the curve (AUC) values was obtained for NLR (AUC=0.763). The AUC for PLR and LMR was statistically significant, while the statistical power was weak compared to NLR (AUC=0.681 and 0.603). The NLR, PLR, and LMR were found to be predictors of mortality. The cut-off value was found to be 3.28 for NLR, 128 for PLR, and 4.22 for LMR. The prognostic value of NLR for mortality was higher than (AUC=0.749) PLR (AUC=0.688) and LMR (AUC=0.609). The NLR, PLR, and LMR were associated with overall survival (OS). There was a significant difference in the median OS time among the NLR, PLR, and LMR values (log-rank test order p<0.001, p=0.001, and p=0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Based on our study results, pre-treatment NLR, PLR and MLR have diagnostic and prognostic values in osteosarcoma.

Is it possible that the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis could start with subchondral trabecular bone loss like osteoporosis? Osteoartrit patogenezi osteoporoza benzer şekilde subkondral trabeküler kemik kaybı ile başlıyor olabilir mi?

ÖZAmaç: Bu çalışmada femoral subtrokanterik bölge kanaldiyafiz oranının kalça kırığı öncesi riskin belirlenmesinde yararlı olup olmadığı araştırıldı. Hastalar ve yöntemler: Çalışma grubu osteoporotik kalça kırıklı 116 hastadan (26 erkek, 90 kadın; ort. yaş 77.8 yıl; dağılım, 61-89 yıl), kontrol grubu ise 56 bireyden (11 erkek, 45 kadın; ort. yaş 75.3 yıl; dağılım, 60-83 yıl) oluştu. Çalışma grubundaki hastaların düz radyografilerinde kanaldiyafiz oranı ölçüldü. Etkilenen taraf ve sağlam tarafın sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Ölçümlerin gözlemciler arasında güvenilirliğini sağlamak ve teknik hataları en aza indirmek için değerlendirmeler iki farklı ortopedik cerrah tarafından iki kere (iki hafta ara ile) yapıldı. Bulgular: Kalça kırıklı hastalarda kanal-diyafiz oranı aynı hastanın sağlam tarafına (p<0.001) ve kontrol deneklerine (p<0.001) göre anlamlı olarak artmıştı. Alıcı işletim karakteristik analizinin sonuçlarına göre, osteoporoz hastalarında kalça kırığını öngörmede kanal diyafiz oranı tanısal bir değere sahipti ve sınır değer yaklaşık 0.53 (duyarlılık: %81, özgüllük: %86) idi. 0.53'lük indeks, %89'luk intertrokanterik kalça kırığı riskini temsil eder. Sonuç: X-ışını cihazına düşük maliyetle rahatlıkla erişilebildiği için bu yöntem tüm hekimler tarafından kolayca uygulanabilir. Yüksek riskli hastalarda kalça kırığı riski belirlenmeli, osteoporoz değerlendirilmeli ve kırık gelişmeden gerekli önlemleri almak için tedaviye başlanmalıdır.Anahtar sözcükler: Kanal-diyafiz oranı, kırık riski, kalça kırığı, osteoporoz. ABSTRACTObjectives: This study aims to investigate whether the ratio of the canal-to-diaphysis in femoral subtrochanteric region is helpful in determining risk before hip fracture. Patients and methods: The study group consisted of 116 patients with osteoporotic hip fractures (26 males, 90 females; mean age 77.8 years; range, 61 to 89 years) and the control group consisted of 56 subjects (11 males, 45 females; mean age 75.3 years; range, 60 to 83 years). The canal-to-diaphysis ratio of patients in the study group was measured on plain radiographs. The results of the affected side and intact side were compared. To ensure the interobserver reliability of the measurements and to minimize technical errors, the assessments were performed twice (two weeks apart) by two different orthopedic surgeons.

No abstract