Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous disease which is why there are currently no specific methods to accurately test the severity, endophenotype or therapy response. This lack of progress is partly attributed to the complexity and variability of depression, in association with analytical variability of clinical literature and the wide number of theoretically complex biomarkers. The literature accessible, indicates that markers involved in inflammatory, neurotrophic and metabolic processes and components of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine systems are rather strong indicators to be considered clinically and can be measured through genetic and epigenetic, transcriptomic and proteomic, metabolomics and neuroimaging assessments. Promising biologic systems/markers found were i.e., growth biomarkers, endocrine markers, oxidant stress markers, proteomic and chronic inflammatory markers, are discussed in this review.Several lines of evidence suggest that a portion of MDD is a dopamine agonist-responsive subtype. This review analyzes concise reports on the pathophysiological biomarkers of MDD and therapeutic reactions via peripheral developmental factors, inflammative cytokines, endocrine factors and metabolic markers. Various literatures also support that endocrine and metabolism changes are associated with MDD. Accumulating evidence suggests that at least a portion of MDD patients show characteristics pathological changes regarding different clinical pathological biomarkers. By this review we sum up all the different biomarkers playing an important role in the detection or treatment of the different patients suffering from MDD. The review also gives an overview of different biomarker’s playing a potential role in modulating effect of MDD.

PURPOSESubtrochanteric fractures of the femur are being managed successfully with various intramedullary and extramedulary implants with reasonable success. However, these implants require precise placement under image intensifier guidance, which exposes the surgeon to substantial amount of radiation. It also restricts the management of these fractures at peripheral centers where facility of image intensifiers is not available. Keeping this in mind we designed this study to identify if contralateral reversed distal femoral locking plate can be used successfully without the use of image intensifier.

METHODSTwenty-four consecutive patients (18 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 28 years (range 19-47 years) suffering subtrochanteric fractures of the femur underwent open reduction and internal fixation with reversed contralateral distal femoral locking plate. The outcome was assessed at the mean follow-up period of 3.2 years (range 2-4.6 years) using the Harris hip score.

RESULTSTwenty-one fractures united with the primary procedure, with a mean time of consolidation being 11 weeks (range, 9-16 weeks). One patient developed superficial suture line infection, which resolved with oral antibiotics. Another patient had a fall 3 weeks after surgery and broke the plate. Repeat surgery with reversed distal femoral locking compression plate was performed along with bone grafting and the fracture united. Two cases had nonunion, which went in for union after bone grafting. The mean Harris hip score at the time of final follow-up was 90.63 (range 82-97).

CONCLUSIONThe reversed contralateral distal femoral plate is a biomechanically sound implant, which when used for fixation of the subtrochanteric fractures with minimal soft tissue stripping shows results comparable to those achieved by using other extramedullary implants as well as intramedullary devices. The added advantage of this implant is its usability in the absence of an image intensifier.

Adult ; Bone Plates ; Female ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; methods ; Hip Fractures ; surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged