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

Aims

Meniscal injuries are common and often induce knee pain requiring surgical intervention. To develop effective strategies for meniscus regeneration, we hypothesized that a minced meniscus embedded in an atelocollagen gel, a firm gel-like material, may enhance meniscus regeneration through cell migration and proliferation in the gel. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate cell migration and proliferation in atelocollagen gels seeded with autologous meniscus fragments in vitro and examine the therapeutic potential of this combination in an in vivo rabbit model of massive meniscus defect.

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.