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
The use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional athletes appears to be increasing. There are no studies which currently map the extent, range, and nature of existing literature concerning the use and efficacy of such therapies in this arena. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence regarding the use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional sport. Best-practice methodological frameworks suggested by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. This scoping review will aim to firstly map the current extent, range, and nature of evidence for biologic strategies to treat injuries in professional and Olympic sport; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings; and thirdly, to identify gaps in existing literature. A three-step search strategy will identify peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, including reviews, original research, and both published and unpublished (‘grey’) literature. An initial limited search will identify suitable search terms, followed by a search of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) using keyword and index terms. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion.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:
Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article:
