Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 2:2022:6119583.
doi: 10.1155/2022/6119583. eCollection 2022.

Diagnostic Value of the Blood Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Tibia Fracture-Related Infection

Peisheng Chen  1   2   3 , Yinhuan Liu  4 , Xiaofeng Lin  5 , Susu Tang  1 , Tongtong Wang  6 , Ke Zheng  1   2   3 , Dongze Lin  1   2   3 , Chaohui Lin  1   2   3 , Bin Yu  7 , Bin Chen  1   2   3 , Fengfei Lin  1   2   3
Affiliations

Diagnostic Value of the Blood Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Tibia Fracture-Related Infection

Peisheng Chen et al. Dis Markers. .

Abstract

Objective: The diagnostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in predicting fracture-related infection (FRI) in tibia fracture patients remains to be explored.

Methods: A retrospective controlled study was carried out with 170 tibia FRI patients and 162 control subjects. The following information was evaluated at admission: age, gender, clinical features, number of white blood cells (WBCs), neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, red blood cells (RBCs), platelets, level of hemoglobin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), as well as NLR, MLR, and PLR.

Results: The number of lymphocytes, RBCs, and platelets in the FRI group was higher than those in the control group, while the number of neutrophils and ESR level was lower (P < 0.05). The level of NLR and MLR was significantly lower in patients with tibia FRI than in control subjects (P < 0.05). Both indicators were positively correlated with WBCs, CRP level, and ESR level (P < 0.001). The results of logistic regression analysis showed that five variables including NLR, MLR, platelets, fracture pattern (closed or open fracture), and site pattern (single or multiple site) were used to construct the FRI risk predictor. The ROC curve analysis result showed that FRI risk predictor yielded the highest AUC, with a sensitivity of 91.2% and a specificity of 90.1%, and made the distinction efficiently between tibia FRI patients and non-FRI patients.

Conclusion: NLR and MLR were decreased in tibia FRI patients compared to non-FRI patients. Both indicators had a positive correlation with WBCs, CRP level, and ESR level. FRI risk predictor constructed based on five variables including NLR and MLR had a high diagnostic value for tibia FRI.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Differences in age and laboratory findings between different types of tibia FRI patients. The data and the corresponding color indicated the P value. WBCs: white blood cells; RBCs: red blood cells; CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; MLR: monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR: platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Analysis of the correlation between variables. The data corresponded to the correlation coefficient, and the corresponding color indicated the P value. WBCs: white blood cells; CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; MLR: monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR: platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curve analysis of the diagnostic value of NLR, MLR, platelets, and FRI risk predictor for tibia FRI. ROC: receiver operating characteristic; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; MLR: monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; FRI risk predictor: elogit(P)/(1 + elogit(P)).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Metsemakers W. J., Morgenstern M., McNally M. A., et al. Fracture-related infection: a consensus on definition from an international expert group. Injury . 2018;49(3):505–510. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bezstarosti H., van Lieshout E. M. M., Voskamp L. W., et al. Insights into treatment and outcome of fracture-related infection: a systematic literature review. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery . 2019;139(1):61–72. doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3048-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang B., Xiao X., Zhang J., Han W., Hersi S. A., Tang X. Epidemiology and microbiology of fracture-related infection: a multicenter study in Northeast China. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research . 2021;16(1):p. 490. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02629-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ma X., Han S., Ma J., et al. Epidemiology, microbiology and therapeutic consequences of chronic osteomyelitis in northern China: a retrospective analysis of 255 patients. Scientific Reports . 2018;8(1):p. 14895. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33106-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang X., Yu S., Sun D., et al. Current data on extremities chronic osteomyelitis in southwest China: epidemiology, microbiology and therapeutic consequences. Scientific Reports . 2017;7(1):p. 16251. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16337-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed