Rotator cuff tears are common in middle-aged and elderly patients. Despite advances in the surgical repair of rotator cuff tears, the rates of recurrent tear remain high. This may be due to the complexity of the tendons of the rotator cuff, which contributes to an inherently hostile healing environment. During the past 20 years, there has been an increased interest in the use of biologics to complement the healing environment in the shoulder, in order to improve rotator cuff healing and reduce the rate of recurrent tears. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the current evidence for the use of forms of biological augmentation when repairing rotator cuff tears. Cite this article:
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. 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.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley frameworks were followed. A three-step search strategy identified relevant published primary and secondary studies, as well as grey literature. The identified studies were screened with criteria for inclusion comprising clinical studies evaluating the use of biologic therapies in professional and Olympic athletes, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and conference proceedings. Data were extracted using a standardized tool to form a descriptive analysis and a thematic summary.Aims
Methods
There is good scientific rationale to support the use of growth factors to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. However, the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other blood-derived products has yet to be proven. Characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies do not provide sufficient information to allow the protocols to be reproduced. Furthermore, the reporting of blood-derived products in orthopaedics is limited by the multiple PRP classification systems available, which makes comparison of results between studies challenging. Several attempts have been made to characterize and classify PRP; however, no consensus has been reached, and there is lack of a comprehensive and validated classification. In this annotation, we outline existing systems used to classify preparations of PRP, highlighting their advantages and limitations. There remains a need for standardized universal nomenclature to describe biological therapies, as well as a comprehensive and reproducible classification system for autologous blood-derived products. Cite this article:
We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed
by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom,
with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice.
After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%)
had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita),
Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question
the need for so many different products, especially with limited
published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that
there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised
trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the
use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice. Cite this article:
