Search

Purpose: To compare a single abdominal microfat (MF) injection mixed or not with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) Low Dose (LD) or High Dose (HD) in order to improve MRI parameters, alleviate pain and enhance functional capacity in knee osteoarthritis., Methods: Patients with symptomatic grade 2 to 4 knee osteoarthritis according to the International Cartilage Repair Society MRI classification were selected. They were prospectively assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. The primary endpoint was change in the maximum of value of cartilage relaxation time in T2 mapping sequences (T2max) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were MRI grade severity and joint space assessment, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, pain evaluation, knee range of motion, and patients' satisfaction. Adverse events were also collected. The complete cell counts and growth factors content of injected products were assessed to analyze their potential relationship with MRI and clinical outcomes., Results: Three groups of 10 patients received a single injection of 10 cc of a mix (1:1) containing MF-Saline, MF-PRP LD or MF-PRP HD. T2max did not change significantly over the time for any of the groups. All treatments significantly improved knee functional status and symptom relief at 3 and 6 months. All patients were responders in the MF/PRP HD at 3 months and significantly higher compared to MF/PRP LD. Half of the injected PRP in the MF/PRP LD group displayed red blood cell contamination of over 8%, which was correlated with an impairment of T2max., Conclusion: A single intra-articular injection of MF with or without PRP is safe and may offer a significant clinical improvement in patients with osteoarthritis., Level of Evidence: 2; randomized double-blind comparative parallel-group trial (RCT No.: NCT04352075)., (Copyright © 2021 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the noninferiority of a single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection compared with hyaluronic acid (HA), to alleviate pain and enhance functional capacity in knee osteoarthritis, and identify biological characteristics of PRP that may affect their efficacy., Methods: Fifty-four patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis received a single injection of either PRP (26 patients) or HA (28 patients). They were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary endpoint was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 3 months, and secondary endpoints were responders' rate (improvement of at least 5 points or 40% of WOMAC total score at 3 months) of pain evaluation and patient's subjective satisfaction. Cell counts and the contents of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor-AB (PDGF-AB), transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) content of injected PRP were assessed to analyze their relationship with clinical outcome., Results: Both treatments proved their improvement in knee functional status and symptom relief, with a significant decrease observed at 1 month on all scores except for pain VAS in PRP group and WOMAC function score in the HA group. No difference between groups regarding WOMAC and VAS scores was observed. A higher percentage of responders was observed in the PRP group (72.7%) than in the HA group (45.8%) without significance (P = .064). The quantity of injected PDGF-AB and TGF-β1 correlated with the change in WOMAC scores at 3 months and was lower in responders than in nonresponders (P = .009 and P = .003, respectively)., Conclusions: Current results indicated that a single injection of very pure PRP offers a significant clinical improvement in the management of knee osteoarthritis, equivalent to a single HA injection in this patient population. Moreover, a significant correlation between the doses of TGF-β1 and PDGF-AB and the worsening of WOMAC score 3 months after the procedure was found., Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized double blind controlled trial., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the biological characteristics of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) obtained from 4 medical devices and a preparation developed in our laboratory using a single-donor model., Methods: Ten healthy persons donated blood that was processed to produce PRP by use of 4 commercial preparation systems and a protocol developed in our laboratory. Volumes and platelet, white blood cell (WBC), and red blood cell concentrations were recorded. The platelet activation status was assessed by flow cytometry. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine the concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor AB, epidermal growth factor, and transforming growth factor β1. We calculated platelet capture efficiency, relative composition, and increase factors from whole blood in platelets and WBC, as well as platelet and growth factor (GF) doses, provided from each preparation., Results: Leukocyte-rich PRP was obtained with RegenPRP (RegenLab, Le Mont-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland) and the Mini GPS III System (Biomet Biology, Warsaw, IN) and provides PRP with higher proportions of red blood cells, WBCs, and neutrophils than leukocyte-poor PRP obtained with the Selphyl System (Selphyl, Bethlehem, PA), Arthrex ACP (Arthrex, Naples, FL), and the preparation developed in our laboratory. The highest platelet and GF concentrations and doses were obtained with the Mini GPS III System and the preparation developed in our laboratory. Different centrifugation protocols did not show differences in the percentages of activated platelets. Finally, a positive correlation between platelet doses and all the GFs studied was found, whereas a positive correlation between WBC doses and GFs was found only for vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor., Conclusions: In a single-donor model, significant biological variations in PRP obtained from different preparation systems were highlighted. The observed differences suggest different results for treated tissue and could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature., Clinical Relevance: Our findings will help clinicians to choose a system that meets their specific needs for a given indication., (Copyright © 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)