Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 202 studies were initially identified, and 35 met criteria for the scoping review; 33 (94.3%) were published within the last eight years, and 18 (51.4%) originated from the USA. Platelet rich plasma was the most studied biologic therapy, being evaluated in 33 (94.3%) studies. Ulnar collateral ligament and hamstring injuries were the conditions most studied (nine (25.7%) studies and seven (20.0%) studies, respectively). Athletes most frequently participated in baseball, soccer, and American football. Only two (5.7%) studies were level 1 evidence, with interpretation and comparison between studies limited by the variations in the injury profile, biologic preparations, and rehabilitation protocols. Conclusion. There is diverse use of biologic therapies in the management of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. There is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support the widespread use of biologic therapies in athletes. Further research priorities include the development of condition/pathology-specific preparations of biologic therapies, and of outcome measures and imaging modalities sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in outcomes, should they exist. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1189–1196

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: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:891–896

Aims. The success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) depends on osseointegration at the graft-tunnel interface and intra-articular ligamentization. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies that evaluated biological augmentation of graft healing in ACLR. . Materials and Methods. In all, 1879 studies were identified across three databases. Following assessment against strict criteria, 112 studies were included (20 clinical studies; 92 animal studies). . Results. Seven categories of biological interventions were identified: growth factors, biomaterials, stem cells, gene therapy, autologous tissue, biophysical/environmental, and pharmaceuticals. The methodological quality of animal studies was moderate in 97%, but only 10% used clinically relevant outcome measures. The most interventions in clinical trials target the graft-tunnel interface and are applied intraoperatively. Platelet-rich plasma is the most studied intervention, but the clinical outcomes are mixed, and the methodological quality of studies was suboptimal. Other biological therapies investigated in clinical trials include: remnant-augmented ACLR; bone substitutes; calcium phosphate-hybridized grafts; extracorporeal shockwave therapy; and adult autologus non-cultivated stem cells. Conclusion. There is extensive preclinical research supporting the use of biological therapies to augment ACLR. Further clinical studies that meet the minimum standards of reporting are required to determine whether emerging biological strategies will provide tangible benefits in patients undergoing ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:271–84

This article reviews the current knowledge of the intervertebral disc (IVD) and its association with low back pain (LBP). The normal IVD is a largely avascular and aneural structure with a high water content, its nutrients mainly diffusing through the end plates. IVD degeneration occurs when its cells die or become dysfunctional, notably in an acidic environment. In the process of degeneration, the IVD becomes dehydrated and vascularised, and there is an ingrowth of nerves. Although not universally the case, the altered physiology of the IVD is believed to precede or be associated with many clinical symptoms or conditions including low back and/or lower limb pain, paraesthesia, spinal stenosis and disc herniation. New treatment options have been developed in recent years. These include biological therapies and novel surgical techniques (such as total disc replacement), although many of these are still in their experimental phase. Central to developing further methods of treatment is the need for effective ways in which to assess patients and measure their outcomes. However, significant difficulties remain and it is therefore an appropriate time to be further investigating the scientific basis of and treatment of LBP

Aims

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by a chronic inflammatory process involving multiple cytokine pathways, leading to articular cartilage degeneration. Intra-articular therapies using pharmaceutical or autologous anti-inflammatory factors offer potential non-surgical treatment options. Autologous protein solution (APS) is one such product that uses the patient’s blood to produce a concentrate of cells and anti-inflammatory cytokines. This study evaluated the effect of a specific APS intra-articular injection (nSTRIDE) on patient-reported outcome measures compared to saline in moderate knee OA.

There has been a marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies performed over the past 16 years, primarily in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Insights into the pathoanatomy of FAI, and high-level evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopy in the management of FAI, have fuelled this trend. Arthroscopic management of labral tears with repair may have superior results compared with debridement, and there is now emerging evidence to support reconstructive options where repair is not possible. In situations where an interportal capsulotomy is performed to facilitate access, data now support closure of the capsule in selective cases where there is an increased risk of postoperative instability. Preoperative planning is an integral component of bony corrective surgery in FAI, and this has evolved to include computer-planned resection. However, the benefit of this remains controversial. Hip instability is now widely accepted, and diagnostic criteria and treatment are becoming increasingly refined. Instability can also be present with FAI or develop as a result of FAI treatment. In this annotation, we outline major current controversies relating to decision-making in hip arthroscopy for FAI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):532–540.

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148–154