Search

Purpose: To assess the response of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (bMSCs) enhanced by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the setting of a normal human tendon (NHT), a demineralized bone matrix (DBM), and a fibrin scaffold (FS) with simulated arthroscopic mechanical washout stress., Methods: Bone marrow was aspirated from the humeral head and concentrated. BMSCs were counted, plated, and grown to confluence. Cells were seeded onto 3 different scaffolds: (1) NHT, (2) DBM, and (3) FS. Each scaffold was treated with a combination of (+)/(-) PRP and (+)/(-) arthroscopic washout simulation. A period of 60 minutes was allotted before arthroscopic washout. Adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation assays were performed to assess cellular activity in each condition., Results: Significant differences were seen in mesenchymal stromal cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation among the scaffolds. DBM and FS showed superior results to NHT for cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. PRP significantly enhanced cellular adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. Arthroscopic simulation did not significantly decrease bMSC adhesion., Conclusions: We found that the type of scaffold impacts bMSCs' behavior. Both scaffolds (DBM and FS) were superior to NHT. The use of an arthroscopic simulator did not significantly decrease the adhesion of bMSCs to the scaffolds nor did it decrease their biologic differentiation potential. In addition, PRP enhanced cellular adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation., Clinical Relevance: Improved healing after tendon repair can lead to better clinical outcomes. BMSCs are attractive for enhancing healing given their accessibility and regenerative potential. Application of bMSCs using scaffolds as cell carriers relies on arthroscopic feasibility., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of corticosteroids and local anesthetics to treat osteoarthritis has established benefits, including relief of pain and increased range of motion, but may also have the potential to lead to tissue atrophy or degeneration, specifically on chondrocytes. There is growing evidence that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has anti-inflammatory characteristics that can limit the cytotoxic effects of corticosteroids and local anesthetics. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of PRP in chondrocyte cultures when combined with corticosteroids or local anesthetics. The hypothesis of this study was that PRP would (1) dampen the negative effects on chondrocyte viability and (2) improve chondrocyte proliferation seen with corticosteroid or local anesthetic treatment alone., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: Peripheral blood was obtained from 8 healthy participants, followed by centrifugation to obtain PRP. Human chondrocytes were treated with PRP alone or in combination with corticosteroids or local anesthetics. Saline (concentration of 0.9%) served as the control. Luminescence and radioactive thymidine assays were performed to examine chondrocyte viability and proliferation, respectively. Cell exposures of 0, 5, 10, and 30 minutes were used for viability and 120 hours for proliferation., Results: The presence of PRP significantly limited the negative effect on chondrocyte viability at tested time points for the examined corticosteroids and local anesthetics ( P < .05). PRP in addition to corticosteroids and local anesthetics significantly improved chondrocyte proliferation ( P < .05)., Conclusion: The addition of PRP can significantly reduce the cytotoxic effects of corticosteroids and/or local anesthetics applied to chondrocytes. PRP can improve the proliferation of chondrocytes compared with corticosteroids or local anesthetics alone., Clinical Relevance: With the use of corticosteroids and local anesthetics for temporary symptomatic relief and improvement of function to treat the chronic progressive nature of osteoarthritis, long-term negative effects of these agents can be limited with the parallel use of PRP.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has anti-inflammatory effects with potential applications in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA)., Purpose: To use an in vitro coculture model of OA in human cartilage and synovium to investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of 2 different PRP preparations., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: A coculture system was created using osteoarthritic cartilage and synovium from 9 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Interleukin-1β (IL-1β) was added to each coculture to induce inflammation. Two PRP preparations were obtained-one yielding low white blood cell and platelet concentrations (PRPLP) and one yielding high platelet and white blood cell concentrations (PRPHP). Either PRPLP, PRPHP, or medium was added to the coculture wells. Control wells contained OA cartilage and synovium but neither IL-1β nor PRP. Normal, non-OA cartilage was obtained to establish baseline gene expression levels. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure changes in markers of inflammation in the tissues (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motifs-5 [ADAMTS-5], tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 [TIMP-1], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], aggrecan, and type I collagen) at 0, 24, 48, and 72 hours., Results: Treatment with PRPLP or PRPHP significantly decreased expression of TIMP-1 and ADAMTS-5 in cartilage, increased aggrecan expression in cartilage, and decreased ADAMTS-5, VEGF, and TIMP-1 expression in synovium compared with control cocultures (P < .05). There was significantly less nitric oxide production in the PRPLP and PRPHP groups compared with controls (P < .05). There were significant differences in gene expression in the normal cartilage compared with all 4 groups of OA cartilage at all 4 time points. Treatment with either PRPLP or PRPHP returned some gene expression to the same levels in normal cartilage but not for all markers of inflammation., Conclusion: This coculture model assessed 2 different PRP preparations and their anti-inflammatory effects over time on human OA cartilage and synovium. Both had a significant anti-inflammatory effect on gene expression; however, there was no difference in the anti-inflammatory effect between the 2 preparations., Clinical Relevance: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic disability, and less invasive treatment methods are needed. Study results suggest that PRP injections may be an effective alternative anti-inflammatory agent in the treatment of OA., (© 2015 The Author(s).)

With increased utilization of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), it is important for clinicians to understand the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory role and stance on PRP. Blood products such as PRP fall under the prevue of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). CBER is responsible for regulating human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. The regulatory process for these products is described in the FDA's 21 CFR 1271 of the Code of Regulations. Under these regulations, certain products including blood products such as PRP are exempt and therefore do not follow the FDA's traditional regulatory pathway that includes animal studies and clinical trials. The 510(k) application is the pathway used to bring PRP preparation systems to the market. The 510(k) application allows devices that are "substantially equivalent" to a currently marketed device to come to the market. There are numerous PRP preparation systems on the market today with FDA clearance; however, nearly all of these systems have 510(k) clearance for producing platelet-rich preparations intended to be used to mix with bone graft materials to enhance bone graft handling properties in orthopedic practices. The use of PRP outside this setting, for example, an office injection, would be considered "off label." Clinicians are free to use a product off-label as long as certain responsibilities are met. Per CBER, when the intent is the practice of medicine, clinicians "have the responsibility to be well informed about the product, to base its use on firm scientific rationale and on sound medical evidence, and to maintain records of the product's use and effects." Finally, despite PRP being exempted, the language in 21 CFR 1271 has caused some recent concern over activated PRP; however to date, the FDA has not attempted to regulate activated PRP. Clinicians using activated PRP should be mindful of these concerns and continued to stay informed., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Current clinical application of platelet-rich plasma is showing a trend toward multiple treatments. The goal of this study was to show the benefit of interval platelet-rich plasma application in the healing and recovery of human tenocytes using an in vitro cell model. Eight volunteers (6 men and 2 women) were included in this study (mean±SD age, 31.6±10.9 years). Venous blood was collected from new blood draws at 3 different times. Two blood products were prepared on each day of treatment: platelet-rich plasma derived from a single-spin process (PRPSS) and platelet-rich plasma derived from a double-spin process (PRPDS). The study had 2 limbs: 2-day and 4-day intervals. Cell proliferation, measured as disintegrations per minute, was then examined via a radioactive thymidine assay. In the 2-day-interval group, the difference in disintegrations per minute between days 0 and 2 in the PRPSS group reached statistical significance (P =.006). In the PRPDS group, statistical difference was seen between days 0 and 4 (P=.001) and between days 2 and 4 (P=.030). In the 4-day-interval group, the difference in disintegrations per minute between days 4 and 8 in the PRPSS group reached statistical significance, showing a decrease in cell proliferation (P =.013). In the PRPDS group, a statistical difference was seen between days 0 and 8 (P=.021), also showing a decrease in cell proliferation. The greatest effect of platelet-rich plasma, which has a positive effect on tenocyte proliferation and recovery, is seen on initial application. Its effect is diminished with repetitive application, and this finding leads to questioning of the efficacy of interval platelet-rich plasma dosing., (Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect on cell viability of the isolated and combined use of allogeneic platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and ketorolac tromethamine on human chondrocytes and tenocytes in a highly controlled in vitro environment., Methods: PRP was produced from 8 subjects. Human chondrocytes (Lonza, Hopkinton, MA) and tenocytes isolated from samples of the long head of the biceps tendons were treated in culture with PRP, ketorolac tromethamine, and methylprednisolone, both alone and in combination. Control samples were treated in media containing 2% or 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). Cells were exposed for 1 hour. Luminescence assays were obtained to examine cell viability after 24 hours and long-term effects on cell viability after 120 hours. Radioactive thymidine assay was used to measure proliferation after 120 hours., Results: For chondrocytes, cell viability (120 hours) increased significantly with the treatment of PRP alone (43,949 ± 28,104 cells; P < .001) and with the combination of ketorolac tromethamine and PRP (43,276 ± 31,208; P < .001), compared with the 2% FBS group (7,397 ± 470). Cell viability decreased significantly after exposure to methylprednisolone (1,323 ± 776; P < .001) and its combination with PRP (4,381 ± 5,116; p < .001). For tenocytes, cell viability (120 hours) was significantly higher with the treatment of PRP (61,287 ± 23,273; P < .001) and the combined treatment of ketorolac tromethamine and PRP (52,025 ± 17,307; P < .001), compared with the 2% FBS group (23,042 ± 2,973). Cell viability decreased significantly after exposure to methylprednisolone (3,934 ± 1,791; P = .001) and its combination with PRP (5,201 ± 2,834; P = .003), compared with 2% FBS., Conclusions: Tendon and cartilage cells showed increased cell viability after an exposure to allogeneic PRP and ketorolac tromethamine. Exposure to methylprednisolone alone decreased cell viability, and addition of PRP could partially reverse this negative effect., Clinical Relevance: Intra-articular injections of pain-modifying or anti-inflammatory drugs are routinely given in orthopaedic practice. Among the many agents available for intra-articular injection, corticosteroids and local anesthetics are the most common in clinical practice. Potential detrimental side effects of intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and local anesthetics have prompted investigation into alternative treatment options such as combinations of PRP and ketorolac tromethamine. In vitro evaluation of their effect on cell viability might build a basis for further translational research and clinical application., (Copyright © 2013 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of the anti-inflammatory effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in a controlled in vitro environment., Methods: Through the stimulation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells with inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α and interferon γ), cell adhesion molecule expression (E-selectin, vascular cell adhesion molecule, and human leukocyte antigen DR) and PRP's anti-inflammatory effect can be measured. PRP was produced from 3 individuals using a single-spin (PRPLP) process. Treatment groups include negative (unstimulated) controls, positive (stimulated) controls, ketorolac tromethamine, methylprednisolone, PRP, ketorolac-PRP, and methylprednisolone-PRP. A fluorescence assay of the cellular inflammation markers was measured by the BioTek Synergy HT plate reader (BioTek Instruments, Winooski, VT) at 0, 1, 2, and 5 days., Results: At days 2 and 5, methylprednisolone treatment showed a 2.1- to 5.8-fold reduction (P < .05) in inflammation markers over PRP. In addition, PRP and ketorolac showed a 1.4- to 2.5-fold reduction (P < .05) in cellular inflammation markers over the control. There was no statistically significant difference between ketorolac and PRP., Conclusions: Although PRP and ketorolac reduced cellular inflammation markers (E-selectin, vascular cell adhesion molecule, and human leukocyte antigen DR) compared with control, neither caused as great a reduction as methylprednisolone., Clinical Relevance: Although PRP and ketorolac did not produce as significant a reduction in cellular inflammation markers as methylprednisolone, they reduced cellular inflammation compared with the control. These agents may have clinical application as injectable anti-inflammatory medications., (Copyright © 2013 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the realm of orthopaedic sports medicine has yielded variable results. Differences in separation methods and variability of the individual may contribute to these variable results., Purpose: To compare the effects of different PRP separation methods on human bone, muscle, and tendon cells in an in vitro model., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: Blood collected from 8 participants (mean ± SD age 31.6 ± 10.9 years) was used to obtain PRP preparations. Three different PRP separation methods were used: a single-spin process yielding a lower platelet concentration (PRP(LP)), a single-spin process yielding high platelet and white blood cell concentrations (PRP(HP)), and a double-spin that produces a higher platelet concentration and lower white blood cell concentration (PRP(DS)). Human bone, muscle, and tendon cells obtained from discarded tissue samples during shoulder surgery were placed into culture and treated with the 3 PRP preparations, control media (2% fetal bovine serum [FBS] and 10% FBS), and native blood. Radioactive thymidine assays were obtained to examine cell proliferation, and testing with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine growth factor concentrations., Results: Addition of PRP(LP) to osteocytes, myocytes, and tenocytes significantly increased cell proliferation (P ≤ .05) compared with the controls. Adding PRP(DS) to osteoblasts and tenocytes increased cell proliferation significantly (P ≤ .05), but no significance was shown for its addition to myocytes. The addition of PRP(HP) significantly increased cell proliferation compared with the controls only when added to tenocytes (P ≤ .05). Osteoblasts: Proliferation was significantly increased by addition of PRP(LP) compared with all controls (2% FBS, 10% FBS, native blood) (P ≤ .05). Addition of PRP(DS) led to significantly increased proliferation compared with all controls, native blood, and PRP(HP) (P ≤ .05). Proliferation was significantly less when PRP(HP) was added compared with PRP(DS) (P ≤ .05). Myocytes: Proliferation was significantly increased by addition of PRP(LP) compared with native blood (P ≤ .05). Adding PRP(HP) or PRP(DS) to myocytes showed no significant increase in proliferation compared with the controls or the other separations. Tenocytes: Proliferation was significantly increased by addition of PRP(LP) compared with all controls (2% FBS, 10% FBS, native blood) (P ≤ .05). Addition of PRP(DS) showed a significant increase compared with the controls and native blood. For tenocytes, there was a significant increase (P ≤ .05) seen when PRP(HP) was added compared with the controls and native blood but not compared with the other separations., Conclusion: The primary findings of this study suggest the application of different PRP separations may result in a potential beneficial effect on the clinically relevant target cells in vitro. However, it is unclear which platelet concentration or PRP preparation may be optimal for the treatment of various cell types. In addition, a "more is better" theory for the use of higher platelet concentrations cannot be supported. This study was not intended to prove efficacy but to provide a platform for future research to be built upon., Clinical Relevance: The utilization of different PRP separations may result in a potentially beneficial effect on the clinically relevant target cells in vitro, but it is unclear which platelet concentration or PRP preparation may be optimal for the treatment of various cell types.

Purpose: To determine the effects of mixing anesthetics or corticosteroids with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on human tenocytes in vitro., Methods: Two separate protocols (double spin and single spin) were used to obtain homologous PRP from the blood of 8 healthy volunteers. Discarded tendon acquired during biceps tenodesis served as tendon specimens for all experiments. After cell isolation, tenocytes were treated in culture with PRP alone or in combination with corticosteroids and/or anesthetics. Fetal bovine serum in concentrations of 2% and 10% served as controls. Cell exposure times of 5, 10, and 30 minutes were used. Radioactive thymidine and luminescence assays were obtained to examine cell proliferation and viability., Results: The presence of lidocaine, bupivacaine, or methylprednisolone resulted in significantly less proliferation than the negative 2% fetal bovine serum control (P < .05). When we compared groups, both lidocaine and bupivacaine had a greater inhibitory effect than methylprednisolone (P < .05). At all time points, viability was significantly decreased in the presence of lidocaine, bupivacaine, or methylprednisolone compared with the negative control (P < .05)., Conclusions: The addition of either anesthetics or corticosteroids to PRP resulted in statistically significant decreases in tenocyte proliferation and cell viability. These results suggest that incorporation of anesthetics or corticosteroids, either alone or in combination, with PRP injection may compromise the potentially beneficial in vitro effects of isolated PRP on tendon cells and compromise cell viability at the site of tendon injury., Clinical Relevance: Anesthetics or corticosteroids either alone or in combination should be used carefully to preserve the proposed positive effects of PRP in the treatment of tendon injury., (Copyright © 2012 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Varying concentrations of blood components in platelet-rich plasma preparations may contribute to the variable results seen in recently published clinical studies. The purposes of this investigation were (1) to quantify the level of platelets, growth factors, red blood cells, and white blood cells in so-called one-step (clinically used commercial devices) and two-step separation systems and (2) to determine the influence of three separate blood draws on the resulting components of platelet-rich plasma., Methods: Three different platelet-rich plasma (PRP) separation methods (on blood samples from eight subjects with a mean age [and standard deviation] of 31.6 ± 10.9 years) were used: two single-spin processes (PRPLP and PRPHP) and a double-spin process (PRPDS) were evaluated for concentrations of platelets, red and white blood cells, and growth factors. Additionally, the effect of three repetitive blood draws on platelet-rich plasma components was evaluated., Results: The content and concentrations of platelets, white blood cells, and growth factors for each method of separation differed significantly. All separation techniques resulted in a significant increase in platelet concentration compared with native blood. Platelet and white blood-cell concentrations of the PRPHP procedure were significantly higher than platelet and white blood-cell concentrations produced by the so-called single-step PRPLP and the so-called two-step PRPDS procedures, although significant differences between PRPLP and PRPDS were not observed. Comparing the results of the three blood draws with regard to the reliability of platelet number and cell counts, wide variations of intra-individual numbers were observed., Conclusions: Single-step procedures are capable of producing sufficient amounts of platelets for clinical usage. Within the evaluated procedures, platelet numbers and numbers of white blood cells differ significantly. The intra-individual results of platelet-rich plasma separations showed wide variations in platelet and cell numbers as well as levels of growth factors regardless of separation method.