Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio and Lymphocyte-Monocyte Ratio correlate with Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection but are not useful markers for diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To investigate reported correlations between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte (NLR) and Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte (LMR) ratios and their value in diagnosis of chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in a large cohort of patients from a single specialist hospital. METHODS: Diagnostic aspirations of 362 patients under investigation for PJI were identified. Of the included patients 185 patients received a final diagnosis of PJI and 177 were classed as aseptic. Established criteria (ICM 2018) were employed to define PJI. Included in the analysis are differential white cell counts, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Synovial Leukocyte Count, Synovial Alpha-defensin ELISA and Synovial Leukocyte esterase activity. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each of the available diagnostic tests together with the corresponding area under the curve values (AUC). Youden's index was utilized to identify the optimal diagnostic threshold point for the NLR and LMR. Other diagnostic tests were evaluated as per the threshold values previously defined in the literature and specified in the ICM criteria. RESULTS: Using Youden's Index to identify the optimal NLR cut-off within our cohort we established a value of 2.93. This yielded a sensitivity of 0.60 and specificity of 0.64. The area under the curve (AUC) of a receiving operator characteristics (ROC) curve was 0.625. Regarding the LMR the results demonstrate similar findings; a positive correlation with a diagnosis of infection but poor sensitivity and specificity. The AUC for LMR was 0.633 and was not superior to NLR (P = 0.753). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant correlation between higher Neutrophil-Lymphocyte and Lymphocyte-Monocyte ratios, and a diagnosis of PJI. The sensitivity and specificity of this calculation is poor and the does not add value to the diagnostic algorithm for PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Cohort analysis.

Treatment Strategies and Outcomes for Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Capitellum.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum is a widely debated subject. PURPOSE: To better understand the efficacy of different surgical modalities and nonoperative treatment of OCD as assessed by radiological and clinical outcomes and return to sports. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review of all treatment studies published between January 1975 and June 2020 was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 76 clinical studies, including 1463 patients, were suitable for inclusion. Aggregate analysis and subgroup analysis of individual patient data were performed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes between the various nonoperative and surgical treatment options for capitellar OCD. A unified grading system (UGS; grades 1-4) was developed from existing validated classification systems to allow a comparison of patients with similar-grade OCD lesions in different studies according to their treatment. Patient-level data were available for 352 patients. The primary outcome measures of interest were patient-reported functional outcome, range of motion (ROM), and return to sports after treatment. The influences of the capitellar physeal status, location of the lesion, and type of sports participation were also assessed. Each outcome measure was evaluated according to the grade of OCD and treatment method (debridement/microfracture, fragment fixation, osteochondral autograft transplantation [OATS], or nonoperative treatment). RESULTS: No studies reported elbow scores or ROM for nonoperatively treated patients. All surgical modalities resulted in significantly increased postoperative ROM and elbow scores for stable (UGS grades 1 and 2) and unstable lesions (UGS grades 3 and 4). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement or overall scores according to the type of surgery for stable or unstable lesions. Return to sports was superior with nonoperative treatment for stable lesions, whereas surgical treatment was superior for unstable lesions. Patients with an open capitellar physis had superior ROM for stable and unstable lesions, but there was no correlation with lesion location and the outcomes of OATS versus fragment fixation for high-grade lesions. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative treatment was similar in outcomes to surgical treatment for low-grade lesions, whereas surgical treatment was superior for higher grade lesions. There is currently insufficient evidence to support complex reconstructive techniques for high-grade lesions compared with microfracture/debridement alone.