Abstract. Introduction. This study aimed to assess the effect of PRP on knee articular cartilage content (thickness and/or volume) and establish if there is a correlation between changes in cartilage and clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methodology. A systematic review was performed following the Cochrane methodology. Studies were included if they reported on cartilage content with MRI or Ultrasound before and after the injection. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Results. 11 studies (n=786) from 1,453 records met the inclusion criteria, with five (n=444) being RCTs. The PRP treatment protocol varied widely. Follow-up ranged from 6–12 months. Eight studies reported increase in cartilage content in the PRP group as compared to control (four showing significant difference). In meta-analysis: PRP treatment was not associated with a significant increase in cartilage thickness in medial and lateral femoral condyle, or in the overall cartilage content (4 studies, n=187, Hedges’ g: 0.079; 95%CI: 0.358-0.516; p=0.723). Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs (n=112) showed no significant difference in increasing cartilage content overall with PRP injections compared with no PRP (Hedges’ g: 0.217; 95%CI: -0.177 – 0.611; P=0.281). There was no correlation between changes in cartilage and clinical outcomes following PRP treatment. Conclusion. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with PRP is not associated with a significant increase in articular cartilage content and any effect on cartilage is not associated with better clinical outcomes. A multi-centre, adequately powered RCT, with a standardized preparation / administration protocol assessing long-term effect of PRP in knee osteoarthritis is needed to guide clinical care

Aims. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injections may provide a simple and minimally invasive treatment for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). This has led to an increase in its adoption as a treatment for knee OA, although there is uncertainty about its efficacy and benefit. We hypothesized that patients with early-stage symptomatic knee OA who receive multiple PRP injections will have better clinical outcomes than those receiving single PRP or placebo injections. Methods. A double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with three groups receiving either placebo injections (Normal Saline), one PRP injection followed by two placebo injections, or three PRP injections. Each injection was given one week apart. Outcomes were prospectively collected prior to intervention and then at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months post-intervention. Primary outcome measures were Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and EuroQol five-dimension five-level index (EQ-5D-5L). Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale for pain and patient subjective assessment of the injections. Results. A total of 102 patients were recruited. The follow-up period was 12 months, at intervals of six weeks, 12 weeks, six months, and 12 months. KOOS-Total significantly improved in all groups at these time intervals compared to pre-injection. There was an improvement in EQ-5D-5L index scores in saline and single injection groups, but not in the multiple injection group. Comparison of treatment groups showed no additional beneficial effect of single or multiple PRP injections above that displayed in the saline injection group. Subjective patient satisfaction and recommendation of treatment received demonstrated a similar pattern in all the groups. There was no indication of superiority of either single or multiple PRP injections compared to saline injections. Conclusion. There is no evidence that single or multiple PRP had any additional beneficial effect compared to saline injection up to 12 months, follow-up after treatment of early stage symptomatic OA of the knee. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):663–671

The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an adjuvant to tissue repair is gaining favour in orthopaedic surgery. Tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a recognised phenomenon that could compromise revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine whether PRP might prevent tunnel widening in ACL reconstruction. Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using a hamstring graft were randomly allocated either to have PRP introduced into the tunnels peri-operatively or not. CT scanning of the knees was carried out on the day after surgery and at three months post-operatively and the width of the tunnels was measured. Patients were also evaluated clinically at three months, when laxity was also measured. Each group comprised 25 patients, and at three months post-operatively all were pain-free with stable knees, a negative Lachman test and a good range of movement. Arthrometric results had improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.001). Despite slightly less tunnel widening in the PRP group, there was no significant difference between the groups at the femoral opening or the mid-tunnel (p = 0.370 and p = 0.363, respectively) nor at the tibial opening or mid-tunnel (p = 0.333 and p = 0.177, respectively). We conclude that PRP has no significant effect in preventing tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:65–9

Introduction. The use of stem cell and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) is extremely controversial and at best experimental. These treatments are being given to patients across the nation for “cash only payments”. Our objectives were (1) to determine the proportion of board certified orthopedic surgeons who offer stem cell or PRP treatment for knee OA, (2) how much the practices charge for those treatments and (3) if members of the knee society use these therapies. Methods. Board certified orthopedic surgeons’ offices in our county were identified by their AAOS active membership. Knee society membership roll was also utilized. Offices were contacted by telephone and presented with a hypothetical patient with end stage knee osteoarthritis searching for specific treatment (stem cells or PRP injections). T-test was used to compare the Dade county board certified orthopedists to knee society members. Results. A total of 186 board certified orthopedic surgeons’ offices were contacted. 17.6% of all contacted orthopedics offices offered PRP and 12.5% offered stem cell treatments. 61.2% of the offices were transparent on the pricing of PRP while 31.8% gave a price for stem cell therapy. The remaining practices stated that pricing would be “determined or discussed” during a scheduled visit. Mean cost for a PRP injection was $887 (SE 101; range: $350–$1700) and for a stem cell injection was $2800 (SE 852; range: $1000–$6000). Usage of these therapies amongst general AAOS members and Knee Society members was found to be significantly different for both PRP and stem cells (17% vs. 10%; p<0.001 and 26% vs. 13%; p<0.001, respectively). No practice had a “free” research protocol to study the treatments. Conclusions. Biological injectables as a treatment for knee OA has theoretical potential promise in the management of arthritis but continues to be at best investigational. Knee Society members demonstrated significantly more caution using these treatments

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether combining PRP or concentrated bone marrow aspirate (CBMA) with a biphasic collagen/glycosaminoglycan (CG) scaffold would improve the outcome of the treatment of full thickness osteochondral defects in sheep. Materials and Methods. Osteochondral defects (5.8×6mm) were created in the medial femoral condyle (MFC) and the lateral trochlea sulcus (LTS) of the stifle joints of 24 sheep. Defects were either left empty or filled with a 6×6mm CG scaffold, either on its own or in combination with PRP or CBMA (n=6). At 6 months the sheep were euthanised, and the repair tissue subjected to mechanical testing, gross morphological analysis, semi quantitative histological scoring and immunohistochemical staining including types I, II and VI collagen. Results. Degenerative change. Lower degenerative scores were found in the LTS + PRP group at 6 months compared to all other groups (p=0.042). ICRS gross repair score. A trend towards improved scores was noted with the PRP and CBMA, particularly in the MFC, but no statistical significance was observed. Mechanical properties. No differences in mechanical properties were observed throughout the four groups. Histology. No statistically significant improvements in the modified O'Driscoll score were observed. The PRP group exhibited excellent tissue fill of the defects with more characteristics of hyaline cartilage than the other groups. Immunohistochemistry. Only the PRP defects showed pericellular type VI collagen staining. They also demonstrated a hyaline like appearance with positive type II collagen and reduced positive type I collagen staining, compared to fibrous or fibrocartilage morphology in the other groups. Discussion. Qualitative improvements in tissue morphology were observed with PRP in combination with the CG scaffolds. Growth factor release from PRP seems to influence the cell phenotype of the osteochondral repair tissue, and may also have a chondroprotective role with regards to perilesional degeneration

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of injecting genetically engineered chondrocytes expressing transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) into the knees of patients with osteoarthritis. We assessed the resultant function, pain and quality of life.

A total of 54 patients (20 men, 34 women) who had a mean age of 58 years (50 to 66) were blinded and randomised (1:1) to receive a single injection of the active treatment or a placebo. We assessed post-treatment function, pain severity, physical function, quality of life and the incidence of treatment-associated adverse events. Patients were followed at four, 12 and 24 weeks after injection.

At final follow-up the treatment group had a significantly greater improvement in the mean International Knee Documentation Committee score than the placebo group (16 points; -18 to 49, vs 8 points; -4 to 37, respectively; p = 0.03). The treatment group also had a significantly improved mean visual analogue score at final follow-up (-25; -85 to 34, vs -11 points; -51 to 25, respectively; p = 0.032). Both cohorts showed an improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, but these differences were not statistically significant. One patient had an anaphylactic reaction to the preservation medium, but recovered within 24 hours. All other adverse events were localised and resolved without further action.

This technique may result in improved clinical outcomes, with the aim of slowing the degenerative process, leading to improvements in pain and function. However, imaging and direct observational studies are needed to verify cartilage regeneration. Nevertheless, this study provided a sufficient basis to proceed to further clinical testing.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:924–32.

Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most devastating and frequent injuries of the knee. Surgical reconstruction is the current standard of care for treatment of ACL injuries in active patients. The widespread adoption of ACL reconstruction over primary repair was based on early perception of the limited healing capacity of the ACL. Although the majority of ACL reconstruction surgeries successfully restore gross joint stability, post-traumatic osteoarthritis is commonplace following these injuries, even with ACL reconstruction. The development of new techniques to limit the long-term clinical sequelae associated with ACL reconstruction has been the main focus of research over the past decades. The improved knowledge of healing, along with recent advances in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, has resulted in the discovery of novel biologically augmented ACL-repair techniques that have satisfactory outcomes in preclinical studies. This instructional review provides a summary of the latest advances made in ACL repair.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:20–31.