Most Orthopaedic Platelet-Rich Plasma Investigations Don't Report Protocols and Composition: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature to assess the heterogeneity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparation and composition reporting for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I and Level II studies from 2016 to 2022 that evaluated the use of PRP therapy for musculoskeletal pathologies. The search phrase used was "platelet-rich plasma clinical studies." Studies were assessed based on their reporting of the PRP preparation methods and reporting of PRP composition.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four studies (in 120 articles) met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, 15 (12.1%) provided comprehensive reporting, including a clear, well-described, and reproducible preparation protocol that future investigators can follow. Thirty-three studies (26.6%) quantitatively reported the final PRP product composition.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the studies using PRP for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies, less than 20% provided a clear, well-described, and reproducible PRP preparation protocol, and only one-fourth of studies reported on the final PRP product composition.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A diverse current reporting of PRP composition between studies provides a high heterogeneity of the term "PRP," which becomes a limitation for a comparison of studies using PRP.

BESS patient care pathway: Tennis elbow

This article provides a guidance summary for the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of the rating quality of the literature and grading the strength of available evidence. The process began by assembling a guideline development group of volunteers including orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, physiotherapists, rheumatologists, radiologists and patients. Virtual meetings were organised to set out explicit PICO questions, including specification of all important outcomes (including patient reported tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) as an important primary outcome) to determine the clinical effectiveness of common treatment options for LET compared with no treatment or placebo. Clinical librarian searched (date 31 April 2022) for available systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials reviewing the management of the LET January 2011 onwards and evidence was collected and summarized using explicit GRADE criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations were characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management options. This informative summary provides the quality of available evidence for the management of LET.

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Tendinopathy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections versus placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical efficacy of PRP versus placebo for the treatment of tendinopathy. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in pain relief at 4 to 6 weeks (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.18, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: -0.62 to 0.26), 12 weeks (SMD: -0.14, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.26), and ≥24 weeks (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.16 to 0.05) or function improvement at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.35), 12 weeks (SMD: 0.18, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.49), and ≥24 weeks (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.66) for PRP compared with placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy. The sensitivity analysis indicated no significant difference in pain relief or function improvement at 12 weeks between PRP and placebo for different types of tendinopathies, treatment regimens, leukocyte concentrations, or cointerventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Platelet-rich plasma injection was not found to be superior to placebo in the treatment of tendinopathy, as measured by pain relief and functional improvement at 4 to 6, 12, and ≥24 weeks.

Position statement: nonoperative management of lateral epicondylitis in adults

We sought to compare methods of nonsurgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis in men and women older than 18 years to develop a guideline intended for orthopedic surgeons and other health care providers who assess, counsel and care for these patients. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to Mar. 9, 2021, and included all English-language studies comparing nonsurgical approaches. We compared physiotherapy versus no active treatment, corticosteroids versus placebo, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo, and autologous blood injection versus placebo. Outcomes of interest were pain outcomes (visual analogue scale scores) and functional outcomes. We rated the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This guideline will benefit patients seeking nonsurgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis by improving counselling on nonsurgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various nonsurgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

The use of platelet-rich plasma therapy in treating tennis elbow: A critical review of randomised control trials

Tennis elbow (TE) is a painful and debilitating condition of the elbow. Recently, the use of orthobiologics, such as platelet-rich-plasma (PRP), has been proposed to promote tendon regeneration. Despite their popularity, there is a paucity of updated reviews on the use of PRP compared with other treatment modalities for treating TE. The aim of this review is to summarise high quality studies that compare the use of PRP therapy with other therapies for TE and to identify areas where further research is warranted. This systematic review was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was undertaken in May 2021. Articles were screened for the following criteria: randomised control trials (RCTs) involving PRP in at least one of the treatment arms for tennis elbow. The quality of the RCTs included were analysed for their risk of bias using the modified Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for randomised trials. A total of 20 RCTs of which 1520 TE patients were analysed. The RCTs included in this review compared PRP with various treatment modalities routinely used in clinical practice such as physiotherapy, steroid injections, Autologous Whole Blood (AWB) and surgical interventions. With regards to the quality of RCTs, collectively, selection bias was found to be low risk however, performance bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel performed poorly. Of the 20 RCTs, only 5 studies were classified as low risk of bias. In these 5 studies, 2 RCTs compared PRP with steroids and reported contrasting results, 1 RCT compared PRP with AWB injections which reported both to be similarly efficacious, 3 RCTs included a placebo group and only 1 reported superior effects with PRP. There are 2 main types of PRP classified according to the number of pro-inflammatory leukocyte i.e. leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor PRP. However, only 8 studies documented the formulation of PRP used. While the heterogeneity of PRP formulations could in-part explain the reported differences in outcomes, overall there is limited robust evidence to recommend PRP therapy for TE. Further research is required to establish the optimal formulation and administration of PRP injections. Proper documentation of TE patients need to be standardised before concrete recommendations on the use of PRP therapy may be offered.

A systematic review on the efficacy of different types of platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare pain relief, functional improvement, and the success rate of treatment using 2 different types of PRP by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from database inception to August 2021 using the following terms: lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP, and platelet-rich plasma. The PRP patients included in our study were divided into those receiving leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) and those receiving leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) according to the different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included patient characteristics, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, success rates, and the safety of treatment at short- and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were evaluated in our analysis, including 2420 LE patients. LP-PRP was used in 19 of these studies, LR-PRP was used in 13, and both LP-PRP and LR-PRP were used in 1. Patients in both PRP groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment compared with before treatment. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before treatment, ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term follow-up, and ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 at long-term follow-up in the LR-PRP group. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term follow-up, and 0.7 to 2.7 at long-term follow-up in the LP-PRP group. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7, respectively, before treatment and ranged from 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0, respectively, at long-term follow-up. The success rates in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 70% to 100% and 36% to 100%, respectively. The complication rate was lower in the LP-PRP group (3.9%) than in the LR-PRP group (6.4%, P = .029), with the main complication being temporary pain after PRP treatment.

CONCLUSION

PRP treatment demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in LE patients regardless of the type of PRP. There were no significant differences in pain relief and functional improvement between LR-PRP and LP-PRP. The main complication was temporary pain after PRP injection, and the complication rate in the LP-PRP group was lower than that in the LR-PRP group.

The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound - Part II: Joint Pathologies, Pediatric Applications, and Guided Procedures

The second part of the Guidelines and Recommendations for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound (MSUS), produced under the auspices of EFSUMB, following the same methodology as for Part 1, provides information and recommendations on the use of this imaging modality for joint pathology, pediatric applications, and musculoskeletal ultrasound-guided procedures. Clinical application, practical points, limitations, and artifacts are described and discussed for every joint or procedure. The document is intended to guide clinical users in their daily practice.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Shows Superiority Over Injections for Pain Relief and Grip Strength Recovery in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE).

RESULTS

40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lateral epicondylitis of the humerus - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The guidelines presented herein provide recommendations for the management of patients with lateral epicondylitis of the humerus. These recommendations are endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japan Elbow Society.

METHODS

The JOA lateral epicondylitis guideline committee revised the previous guidelines on the basis of the "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which emphasized the importance of the balance between benefit and harm, and proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. These guidelines consist of 11 clinical questions (CQs), 9 background questions (BQs), and 3 future research questions (FRQs). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

The committee proposed recommendations for each CQ by determining the level of evidence and assessing the consensus rate. Physical therapy was the best recommendation with the best evidence. The BQs and FRQs were answered by collecting evidence based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines presented herein were reviewed systematically, and recommendations were proposed for each CQ. These guidelines are expected to be widely used not only by surgeons or physicians but also by other healthcare providers, such as nurses, therapists, and athletic trainers.

Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Based on Achievement of Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Background:

The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains debatable.

Purpose:

To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP in lateral epicondylitis treatment using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values as a reference and to investigate if leukocyte content can influence the effectiveness of the therapy.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors searched the Medline and Scopus databases for studies on lateral epicondylitis and PRP therapy that used the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH); Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); and Mayo Clinic Performance Index (MAYO). The weighted arithmetic means for the PROMs were calculated at baseline (week 0) and follow-up weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 52, and 104. The mean differences in outcomes (ΔVAS, ΔDASH, ΔPRTEE, and ΔMAYO) were compared with the MCID values at each follow-up point. In addition, the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) versus leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was also compared. The Student t test was used in all analyses.

Results:

A total of 26 studies were included in the analysis. After PRP injection, all PROM scores improved with time. The scores improved significantly from baseline to each follow-up time ( P < .0001), with the exception of the PRTEE (no significant difference at follow-up weeks 12 and 52). The mean difference in scores from baseline exceeded the respective MCIDs from weeks 4 to 104 for the VAS and DASH, from weeks 4 to 52 for the MAYO, and from weeks 8 to 52 for the PRTEE. The MCID for each of the PROMs was exceeded at almost every observation period in both the LR-PRP and the LP-PRP systems.

Conclusion:

Based on comparisons with the MCID values of commonly used outcome scores, PRP seems to be an effective form of treatment for lateral epicondylitis. Both the LR- PRP and the LP- PRP systems were effective in the context of meeting the MCID.

Adipose tissue as a source of growth factors to promote wound healing: a human study of skin graft donor sites

Objective:

In the microenvironment of wound sites, naturally occurring growth factors are crucial for cell migration, opsonisation, chemotaxis, differentiation and angiogenesis. Exogenous growth factors, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and adipose tissue, also improve healing.

Method:

In the present within-subject study, we described the effects of PRP and adipose tissue extract (ATE) on skin graft donor site wound healing in patients requiring split-thickness skin grafts. Each patient, having at least two donor sites, received both control (no growth factor) and experimental (PRP or ATE) treatments. Wounds were evaluated on days 5, 7, 10, 15, 30 and 60. Digital photography and spectral images were used to analyse haemoglobin and melanin content, and re-epithelialisation area. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale. Scar characteristics were scored on days 30 and 60. Biomaterial samples were analysed for growth factor and protein content.

Results:

The study included 24 patients (18 male and six female; mean age: 59.1 years). PRP was topically applied to wounds in 11 patients (13 donor sites) and ATE in 13 patients (15 sites). ATE-treated donor sites exhibited significantly accelerated wound re-epithelialisation on days 5 and 7 compared with control sites (p=0.003 and 0.04, respectively). PRP accelerated healing on day 7 compared with control sites (p=0.001). Additionally, the application of ATE improved scar quality on days 30 and 60 (p=0.0005 and 0.02, respectively). Pain scores did not differ significantly between treatments.

Conclusion:

In this study, both growth factor sources stimulated wound healing. ATE is an alternative source of growth factors that promote early wound healing and improve scar quality.

Platelet-rich plasma therapy ensures pain reduction in the management of lateral epicondylitis - a PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Analyze the effectiveness of PRP therapy in comparison to other available treatments in the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted electronic database searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until June 2021 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy of PRP in the management of LE. VAS for pain, DASH score, and PRETEE score were the outcomes analyzed. The analysis was performed in R-platform using MetaInsight and interventions were ranked based on p-score approach. Cochrane's CINeMA approach was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs with 2040 patients were included in the network analysis. Compared to saline control, only leukocyte-rich-PRP resulted in significant pain relief (WMD=-14.8,95% CI [-23.18,-6.39];low confidence) compared to steroid, local anesthetic, laser, and surgery. On analyzing DASH scores and PRETEE scores, none of the above-mentioned treatment methods were superior to saline control. In subgroup analysis, leucocyte-rich-PRP resulted in clinically significant improvement. Leucocyte-rich-PRP seems more promising with p-score of 0.415.

CONCLUSION

PRP therapy offers significant pain relief compared to saline control in the management of LE without similar improvement in functional outcome. With available low-quality evidence, PRP was the most promising therapy that needs further exploration to explore its usefulness in lateral epicondylitis.

Persistent Tennis Elbow Symptoms Have Little Prognostic Value: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tennis elbow is a common painful enthesopathy of the lateral elbow that limits upper limb function and frequently results in lost time at work. Surgeons often recommend surgery if symptoms persist despite nonsurgical management, but operations for tennis elbow are inconsistent in their efficacy, and what we know about those operations often derives from observational studies that assume the condition does not continue to improve over time. This assumption is largely untested, and it may not be true; meta-analyzing results from the control arms of tennis elbow studies can help us to evaluate this premise, but to our knowledge, this has not been done.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aims of this systematic review were to describe the course of (1) global improvement, (2) pain, and (3) disability in participants who received no active treatment (placebo or no treatment) in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tennis elbow. We also assessed (4) whether the duration of symptoms or placebo effect is associated with differences in symptom trajectories.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to August 12, 2019, for trials including participants with tennis elbow and a placebo or a no-treatment arm and a minimum follow-up duration of 6 months. There were no language restrictions or exclusion criteria. We extracted global improvement, pain, and disability outcomes. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias of included trials. To estimate the typical course of tennis elbow without active treatment, we pooled global improvement (the proportion of participants who reported feeling much better or completely recovered), mean pain, and mean disability using baseline, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up data. We transformed pain and disability data from the original papers so that at each timepoint the relevant outcome was expressed as change relative to baseline to account for different baseline values. We used meta-regression to assess whether the placebo effect or duration of symptoms before enrollment was associated with differences in symptom trajectories. We included 24 trials with 1085 participants who received no active treatment.

RESULTS

The number of patients who were not improved decreased exponentially over time. The half-life of global improvement was between 2.5 and 3 months (that is, every 2.5 to 3 months, 50% of the remaining symptomatic patients reported complete recovery or greatly improved symptoms). At 1 year, 89% (189 of 213; 95% CI 80% to 97%) of patients experienced global improvement. The mean pain and disability followed a similar pattern, halving every 3 to 4 months. Eighty-eight percent of pain (95% CI 70% to 100%) and 85% of disability (95% CI 60% to 100%) had resolved by 1 year. The mean duration of symptoms before trial enrollment was not associated with differences in symptom trajectories. The trajectories of the no-treatment and placebo arms were similar, indicating that the placebo effect of the studied active treatments likely is negligible.

CONCLUSION

Based on the placebo or no-treatment control arms of randomized trials, about 90% of people with untreated tennis elbow achieve symptom resolution at 1 year. The probability of resolution appears to remain constant throughout the first year of follow-up and does not depend on previous symptom duration, undermining the rationale that surgery is appropriate if symptoms persist beyond a certain point of time. We recommend that clinicians inform people who are frustrated with persisting symptoms that this is not a cause for apprehension, given that spontaneous improvement is about as likely during the subsequent few months as it was early after the symptoms first appeared. Because of the high likelihood of spontaneous recovery, any active intervention needs to be justified by high levels of early efficacy and little or no risk to outperform watchful waiting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

The effect of leucocyte concentration of platelet-rich plasma on outcomes in patients with lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

HYPOTHESIS

The concentration of leukocytes influences the quality of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is no consensus on which type of PRP based on the concentration of leukocytes is the best for lateral epicondylitis (LE).

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until March 1, 2020. Studies involving randomized controlled trials, patients with LE, and treatment with PRP injections were included. PRP was classified into leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP and leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP. LR-PRP was defined as PRP with a white blood cell concentration exceeding that of whole blood (4.0-10.0 per μL³), whereas LP-PRP was defined as PRP with a lower white blood cell concentration than that of whole blood. The efficacy of PRP was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and success rates.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials (six involving LP-PRP and five involving LR-PRP) were eligible for inclusion in this review. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the VAS score. Regarding short-term follow-up, there was no difference in the VAS scores between the LP-PRP and control groups (standard mean difference [SMD], 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.29 to 0.30; P = 0.97), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). There was also no difference in the VAS scores between the LR-PRP and control groups (SMD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.20; P = 0.34), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 56.7%). Regarding long-term follow-up, there was no difference in the VAS scores between the LP-PRP and control groups (SMD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.23; P = 0.134) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 88.4%). The LR-PRP group had lower VAS scores than the control group (SMD, -1.06; 95% CI, -2.02 to -0.09; P = 0.032) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 92%). In the LP-PRP group, there was no significant difference in the success rate (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.07-16.47; P = 0.956) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 87.7%). In the LR-PRP group, however, the patients who received PRP had a higher success rate than those in the control group (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.67-4.85; P < 0.01) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 82.9%).

CONCLUSION

LR-PRP may provide pain relief and successful outcomes for patients with LE compared with alternative local injections. Better results were observed with the use of LR-PRP than with the use of LP-PRP.

Allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors local injection in treatment of tennis elbow: a prospective randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of local injection of allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors in treatment of patients with tennis elbow.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 120 tennis elbow patients randomly divided into two groups. The patients were locally injected with allogeneic growth factors (treatment group) or with normal saline (control group). The outcomes were assessed using Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) scales. The clinical outcomes were accordingly classified as excellent, good and poor. The patient's satisfaction and adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the age, gender, dominant arm or the pre-injection scores. At three month follow-up, the reductions in the mean PRTEE and qDASH scores were 88.7% and 70.6% in the treatment group versus 21.8% and 14.9% in the control group, respectively. At the last follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group were excellent in 85% of patients and good in 15%, versus 8% and 32% in the control group. Overall, 95% were satisfied in the treatment group compared to 25% in control group. Forty patients in the treatment group experienced mild transient post-injection pain.

CONCLUSION

This study strongly suggests that local injection of allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors could be a promising safe treatment option for tennis elbow with significant pain relief, functional improvement and patient's satisfaction. Yet, additional larger studies are needed to assess the durability of these outcomes.

Orthobiologics: Diagnosis and Treatment of Common Tendinopathies

Orthobiologics, including platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, and mesenchymal stem cells, are seeing increasing use in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), muscle injury, and tendinopathy. This article reviews the biology and applications of orthobiologics in tendons, muscles, and joints, and focuses on platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Clinical evidence-based literature related to the use of PRP in the treatment of rotator cuff injury, lateral epicondylosis, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, knee OA, and acute muscle injury are discussed.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Improving Pain and Function in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Risk-of-Bias Assessment

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for lateral epicondylitis and evaluate its impact on pain and functional outcomes.

METHODS

This study followed Preferred Reporting Items and Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in September 2019 and repeated in April 2020 using electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month data were extracted for visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and modified Mayo Clinic performance index for the elbow (MAYO) scores. Only level 1 studies with patients who had not undergone surgery were included. Outcomes data, study design, demographic variables, PRP formulation, and comparator treatments were recorded. Statistical analyses of pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) were performed and compared with estimated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values. The Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) was used to assess methodological quality, and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment was performed.

RESULTS

This review included 16 level I studies, 9 of which (581 total patients, 281 receiving single injections of PRP) were quantitatively analyzed. The average age was 41.5 years, 56.8% of patients were female, and mean follow-up was 7.5 months. The mean CMS was 78.94 ± 12.74 (range 59 to 97), and 5 of 16 studies were at low risk for bias. Patients who received PRP had significantly improved VAS scores at 3 months (WMD -0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.03, -0.66; P < .01) and 6 months (WMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.98, -0.50; P < .01) compared with those who received autologous whole blood, though MAYO scores were statistically equivalent. Comparing PRP to corticosteroids, VAS and DASH scores were not significantly different at 3 months, although PRP was superior at 6 months for VAS (WMD -1.70; 95% CI -2.65, -0.75; P < .01) and DASH (WMD -6.23; 95% CI -10.78, -1.69; P < .01). Most differences in VAS and DASH scores exceeded the 5% absolute difference estimate for their respective MCIDs but fell short of the 10% estimate.

CONCLUSION

Considering the small number of comparable studies, lack of quantification of specific PRP content, considerable heterogeneity between randomized control trials, and most effect sizes being equivocal within the framework of 2 estimated MCID values, the authors can neither scientifically support nor discourage the usage of PRP for lateral epicondylitis despite finding statistically significant improvements in pain and functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, prognostic.

Comparative analysis of leucocyte poor vs leucocyte rich platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review & meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review & Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

RESULTS

We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.

Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common overuse injury affecting approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population. Although symptoms may disappear spontaneously within 1 year, the clinical guidelines for conservative treatment are not clear. The authors' objective was to examine the outcomes of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis through a meta-analysis and provide a treatment recommendation using the available evidence.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify primary research articles studying conservative treatments (electrophysiotherapy, physical therapy, and injections) for lateral epicondylitis. The authors included randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Data related to outcomes (pain, grip strength, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score) and complications were extracted.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Electrophysiotherapy was effective in improving pain [mean difference, -10.0 (95 percent CI, -13.8 to -6.1)], Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score [mean difference, -10.7 (95 percent CI, -16.3 to -5.0)], and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score [mean difference, -11.9 (95 percent CI, -15.8 to -7.9)]; and physical therapy improved pain [mean difference, -6.0 (95 percent CI, -9.7 to -2.3)] and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores [mean difference, -7.5 (95 percent CI, -11.8 to -3.2)] compared to placebo. Injections did not improve any outcome measures. Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and injections reported higher adverse effects than physical therapy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy reported statistically and clinically improved scores in pain and function compared to placebo. Injections may put patients at higher risk for adverse effects compared to other conservative treatments. When managing lateral epicondylitis conservatively, electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy should be prioritized before other interventions.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Biologics in shoulder and elbow pathology

In recent years, orthobiologics have been of increasing clinical interest in the treatment of shoulder and elbow pathology. In some conditions, such as rotator cuff injury and lateral epicondylitis, there have been high-quality trials that support the use of platelet-rich plasma in reducing pain, restoring functionality, and improving clinical outcomes. However, as the numbers of both cellular-based biologics and the conditions being augmented by biologics continue to expand, there is a substantial need for high-quality investigations to support their routine use in most shoulder and elbow conditions. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence of orthobiologics in the management of shoulder and elbow injury, as nonoperative treatment and as augments to operative treatment.

Tennis elbow, study protocol for a randomized clinical trial: needling with and without platelet-rich plasma after failure of up-to-date rehabilitation

Background

The conservative management of lateral epicondylitis is known to be a difficult-to-treat annoying condition. A treatment with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is often performed, but its efficacy remains controversial.

Methods

This study is a single-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial, preceded by a case series. All the 232 planned patients of the case series will undergo an up-to-date comprehensive rehabilitation program, including focused extracorporeal shock waves therapy. This rehabilitation program is expected to have a maximum success rate 75%. It is therefore aimed to allocate a minimum of 58 patients with rehabilitation failure into the 1:1 randomized trial. Stratification is planned on age and lesion pattern. The masking will be quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator & Outcome Assessor). The patients will undergo an ultrasound (US)-guided needling combined with either PRP (intervention group) or saline (control group). The primary endpoint will be the pain improvement from baseline (month 0) at 3 months on a 0–10 visual analog scale (VAS) during a maximal strength isometric contraction of the extensor carpialis brevis muscle. The main secondary endpoints will include the rehabilitation success rate and improvements from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months of the following outcomes: (i) Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, (ii) Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score, (iii) maximal grip strength on Jamar test, and (iv) the ultrasonographic evaluation of the US of the epicondylar tendons.

Discussion

The study results will provide insight into the effect of PRP as adjuvant therapy to tendon fenestration, and may contribute to identify the best preceding and concomitant rehabilitation protocol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987256. Registered on 20 August 2019.

Effect of Normal Saline Injections on Lateral Epicondylitis Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow, is a painful degenerative disorder that commonly occurs in adults between 40 and 60 years of age. Normal saline (NS) injections have been used as placebo through a large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis of RCTs aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of NS injections on lateral epicondylitis symptoms and compare results with established minimal clinically important difference criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for clinical trials reporting pain and joint function with the visual analog scale, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in patients with lateral epicondylitis. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model and generic inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was tested with the I² statistic index.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs included in this meta-analysis revealed a significant improvement in pain (mean difference, 3.61 cm [95% CI, 2.29-4.92 cm]; P < .00001; I² = 88%; visual analog scale) and function (mean difference, 25.65 [95% CI, 13.30-37.99]; P < .0001; I² = 82%; Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation / Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) after NS injection (≥6 months).

CONCLUSION

NS injections yielded a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in pain and functional outcomes in patients with lateral epicondylitis. New research should focus on better methods to diminish the potential confounders that could lead to this effect because NS injections could mask the real effect of an active therapeutic intervention in RCT.

REGISTRATION

CRD42019127547 (PROSPERO).

Minimally invasive treatment of lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis (LE), also known as tennis elbow, is the most common cause of elbow pain in adults, with approximately 1-3% of the general population being afflicted. Although the condition is usually self-limiting, pain can be a major hindrance, limiting daily activity and the work capacity of patients. As a result, many treatment options have become available with the aim to shorten the duration of the disease and increase the quality of life. Steroid injections, NSAIDs, topical creams, platelet-rich plasma, physical therapy, and kinesiotaping are considered conservative treatments, while surgical options are last-resort treatments reserved for refractory LE. In this review, we will provide a brief summary of LE and focus on addressing conservative and minimally invasive interventional options for the treatment of LE.

Platelet-rich Plasma or Autologous Blood Do Not Reduce Pain or Improve Function in Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous blood are commonly used therapies for lateral epicondylitis, but the evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials is conflicting. Thus, it is still unclear if patients benefit from these treatments.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In the setting of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we compared PRP, autologous blood, and saline injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with respect to: (1) VAS pain scores, and (2) functional outcomes (DASH score and grip strength) 1 year after treatment.

METHODS

We performed a parallel-group, randomized, controlled participant- and assessor-blinded study including adults with clinically diagnosed lateral epicondylitis. We defined lateral epicondylitis as pain in the lateral humeral epicondyle area exacerbated during resisted wrist extension and epicondyle compression. The participants were recruited from a secondary referral center, after not responding to initial nonoperative treatment. Patients with other concomitant upper-limb symptoms and surgical treatment of the elbow were excluded. Randomization sequence was generated with computer software and concealed from the investigators. We randomized 119 participants to receive an injection of PRP, autologous blood, or saline (1:1:1) in the proximal insertion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle; 40 participants received PRP, 40 received autologous blood, and 39 received a saline injection. To prepare the PRP, we collected venous blood with a syringe kit followed by centrifugation, whereas autologous blood group received unprepared blood injection. Two unblinded investigators gave injections while the participant was unable to see the injection. There was no formal postinjection rehabilitation protocol and the use of NSAIDs was similar between different treatment arms. Follow-up visits were at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the injection. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain, measured with VAS scale (without specification as to whether the pain was activity related or at rest; range 0-10; a higher score indicates worse pain; the minimum clinically important difference [MCID] on the 10-cm scale was 1.5 cm), from baseline to 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the DASH score (range 0-100; a higher indicates a poorer outcome, and the MCID was 10.2 points) and grip strength. All patients were included in the analyses, and analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle. There was no crossover between treatment groups. At 52 weeks, nearly all (95% [38 of 40]) participants in autologous blood group were available for analysis whereas 78% (31 of 40) and 82% (32 of 39) were available in PRP and saline groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and funded by the local hospital district. With 40 patients in each group, we had 80% power to detect a clinically important improvement in pain (1.5 cm on the 10-cm VAS pain scale).

RESULTS

There were no clinically important differences in the mean VAS pain or DASH scores among the groups at any timepoint. At 52 weeks, the mean difference in the VAS score for pain was -0.2 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.1; p = 0.75) for PRP versus saline and 0.5 (95% CI -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.40) for autologous blood versus saline. The corresponding mean differences in the DASH score were 0.0 (95% CI -9.2 to 9.2; p > 0.99) and 7.7 (95% CI -1.3 to 16.7; p = 0.09) and those for grip strength were 1.4 kg (95% CI -3.3 to 6.1; p = 0.56) and -0.2 kg (95% CI -5.0 to 4.5; p = 0.92). No complications occurred because of the injections.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP or autologous blood injections did not improve pain or function at 1 year of follow-up in people with lateral epicondylitis compared with those who were given a saline injection. However, because the 95% CIs did not exclude the MCID in VAS scores for autologous blood versus saline at 52 weeks, it is possible that a larger study could identify a between-group difference that we missed, but the effect size of that difference (based on our findings), even if present, is likely still to be small. Until or unless future randomized trials convincingly show a benefit either to PRP or autologous blood injections, we recommend against their use in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Management of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Narrative Literature Review

Lateral epicondylitis, also termed as "tennis elbow," is the most common cause of elbow pain and dysfunction, mainly resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension during various activities. The exact pathogenesis remains largely elusive with putative tendinosis, a symptomatic degenerative process of the local tendon. It is usually diagnosed by clinical examinations. Sometimes, additional imaging is required for a specific differential diagnosis. Although most cases can be self-healing, the optimal treatment strategy for chronic lateral epicondylitis remains controversial. This article presents a landscape of emerging evidence on lateral epicondylitis and focuses on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management, shedding light on the understandings and treatment for healthcare professionals.

Post-Procedure Protocols Following Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post-PRP protocols.

LITERATURE SURVEY

A systematized review of the literature on post-PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018.

METHODOLOGY

After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta-analysis was not performed.

SYNTHESIS

Eighty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight-bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2-7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2-3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4-6 weeks following injection.

CONCLUSION

Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post-PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post-PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post-PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.

Platelet Concentrates in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Platelet concentrates (PCs), mostly represented by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are autologous biological blood-derived products that may combine plasma/platelet-derived bioactive components, together with fibrin-forming protein able to create a natural three-dimensional scaffold. These types of products are safely used in clinical applications due to the autologous-derived source and the minimally invasive application procedure. In this narrative review, we focus on three main topics concerning the use of platelet concentrate for treating musculoskeletal conditions: (a) the different procedures to prepare PCs, (b) the composition of PCs that is related to the type of methodological procedure adopted and (c) the clinical application in musculoskeletal medicine, efficacy and main limits of the different studies.

Clinical indications for image-guided interventional procedures in the musculoskeletal system: a Delphi-based consensus paper from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR)-Part II, elbow and wrist

BACKGROUND

Although image-guided interventional procedures of the elbow and wrist are routinely performed, there is poor evidence in the literature concerning such treatments. Our aim was to perform a Delphi-based consensus on published evidence on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist and provide clinical indications on this topic.

METHODS

A board of 45 experts in image-guided interventional musculoskeletal procedures from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology were involved in this Delphi-based consensus study. All panelists reviewed and scored published papers on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist updated to September 2018 according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels of evidence. Consensus on statements drafted by the panelists about clinical indications was considered as "strong" when more than 95% of panelists agreed and as "broad" if more than 80% agreed.

RESULTS

Eighteen statements were drafted, 12 about tendon procedures and 6 about intra-articular procedures. Only statement #15 reached the highest level of evidence (ultrasound-guided steroid wrist injections result in greater pain reduction and greater likelihood of attaining clinically important improvement). Seventeen statements received strong consensus (94%), while one received broad consensus (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is still poor evidence in published papers on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist. A strong consensus has been achieved in 17/18 (94%) statements provided by the panel on clinical indications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to better define the role of these procedures in clinical practice.

KEY POINTS

• The panel provided 18 evidence-based statements on clinical indications of image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist. • Only statement #15 reached the highest level of evidence: ultrasound-guided steroid wrist injections result in greater pain reduction and greater likelihood of attaining clinically important improvement. • Seventeen statements received strong consensus (94%), while broad consensus was obtained by 1 statement (6%).

The use of biologics for the elbow: a critical analysis review

There is significant interest in biologic treatment options to improve the healing environment and more rapidly decrease symptoms in many conditions around the elbow. Despite fairly widespread use of biologic agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the elbow, there is a lack of clear evidence in the literature to support its use. The potential impact of these biologic agents must be evaluated with evidence from high-quality studies, particularly considering the high financial burden these treatments often impose on patients. The aim of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the biologic augmentation options available for use by the physician treating painful conditions of the elbow and to identify areas where further research is warranted.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Nonsurgical Treatment Options for Enthesopathy of the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Numerous treatment options have been proposed for enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB).

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the efficacy and safety of nonsurgical treatment options for eECRB described in randomized placebo-controlled trials at short-term, midterm, and long-term follow-up and (2) evaluate outcomes in patients receiving placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, 4 electronic databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials for eECRB. Studies reporting visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores and/or grip strength were included. Random- or fixed-effects meta-analysis was employed to compare treatments with at least 2 eligible studies using the standardized mean difference and odds ratio. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018075009).

RESULTS

Thirty-six randomized placebo-controlled trials, evaluating 11 different treatment modalities, with a total of 2746 patients were included. At short-term follow-up, only local corticosteroid injection improved pain; however, it was associated with pain worse than placebo at long-term follow-up. At midterm follow-up, laser therapy and local botulinum toxin injection improved pain. At long-term follow-up, extracorporeal shock wave therapy provided pain relief. With regard to grip strength, only laser therapy showed better outcomes in comparison with placebo. While there was no difference among various treatments in the odds ratio of an adverse event, they all increased adverse events compared with placebo. In placebo-receiving patients, a sharp increase in the percentage of patients reporting mild pain or less was observed from 2% at short-term follow-up to 92% at midterm follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Most patients experienced pain resolution after receiving placebo within 4 weeks of follow-up. At best, all treatments provided only small pain relief while increasing the odds of adverse events. Therefore, if clinicians are inclined to provide a treatment for particular patients, they may consider a pain relief regimen for the first 4 weeks of symptom duration. Patient-specific factors should be considered when deciding on treatment or watchful waiting.

Needle tenotomy with PRP versus lidocaine in epicondylopathy: clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes over twenty months

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether pathological changes in elbow epicondylopathy, as assessed by conventional ultrasonography and clinical outcomes, could be modified following tenotomy with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus tenotomy with lidocaine.

METHODS

This prospective sub-study was part of a patient- and assessor-blinded, superiority-type, randomized, lidocaine-controlled trial that was performed in a tertiary hospital to assess the effectiveness of PRP versus lidocaine as tenotomy adjuvants in patients with epicondylopathy. Patients were followed after two sessions of tenotomy with either PRP or lidocaine adjuvants (4 ml) within a 2-week interval. Tendon thickness, echotexture, and neovascularization were assessed as secondary outcome measurements at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 20 months after treatment, and correlations with clinical outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Twenty months after treatment, tenotomy induced changes in tendon structure, thickness (± = 0.0006), vascularity (p < 0.0001), and echotexture (p < 0.0001). In Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-E) and pain (VAS-P) scores, 80.85% and 90.91% of patients showed a meaningful clinical improvement, respectively, without differences between PRP and lidocaine. There were significant differences in between-group changes in vascularity over time, p = 0.037 and p = 0.049 in the unadjusted and adjusted models, respectively. There was no relationship between pain or function and sonographic entities at the various time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Two successive needle tenotomies induced structural changes in recalcitrant epicondylopathy, with PRP displaying more vascularization and increased thickness over time compared to lidocaine. PRP compared with lidocaine did not result in improved function or decreased pain over 20 months.

The Therapeutic Benefits of Saline Solution Injection for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Saline Injections With Nonsurgical Injection Therapies

PURPOSE

To quantify the effect of saline solution injections on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to determine whether this effect is clinically relevant by comparing it with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria.

METHODS

A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of lateral epicondylitis interventions comparing saline solution injections with nonsurgical injection therapies. Among included studies, saline solution was compared with platelet-rich plasma, autologous conditioned plasma, corticosteroid, and botulinum toxin injections. By use of data from included studies, a random-effects model was used to calculate overall mean differences (MDs) in pre- and post-injection PROMs in a pair-wise fashion. Calculated MDs were then compared with MCID criteria.

RESULTS

Of 458 identified studies, 10 met the inclusion criteria and encompassed 283 patients. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, statistically significant improvements in MDs in visual analog scale (VAS) scores were noted as follows: MD of 16.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.29-23.93) at 1 month; MD of 22.50 (95% CI, 11.45-33.55) at 3 months; MD of 40.40 (95% CI, 27.48-53.32) at 6 months; and MD of 47.04 (95% CI, 39.43-54.66) at 12 months. At 6 months, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores showed a statistically significant improvement (MD, 23.92; 95% CI, 9.47-38.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores at 6 months (23.92) surpassed MCID criteria for conservatively managed upper-extremity musculoskeletal pathology (10.83)-suggesting that saline solution injections have a clinically relevant effect. VAS MCID criteria are poorly established, but VAS scores at 6 and 12 months surpassed MCID criteria for conservative treatments for common orthopaedic conditions. In all but 1 study, no statistically significant difference in PROMs was found between saline solution and non-saline solution injections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II randomized controlled trials.

Impact of Platelet-Rich Plasma Use on Pain in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Amid extensive debate, evidence surrounding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for musculoskeletal injuries has rapidly proliferated, and an overall assessment of efficacy of PRP across orthopaedic indications is required.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Does PRP improve patient-reported pain in musculoskeletal conditions? and (2) Do PRP characteristics influence its treatment effect?

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science libraries were searched through February 8, 2017. Additional studies were identified from reviews, trial registries, and recent conferences.

STUDY SELECTION

All English-language randomized trials comparing platelet-rich therapy with a control in patients 18 years or older with musculoskeletal bone, cartilage, or soft tissue injuries treated either conservatively or surgically were included. Substudies of previously reported trials or abstracts and conference proceedings that lacked sufficient information to generate estimates of effect for the primary outcome were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

DATA EXTRACTION

All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Agreement was high between reviewers with regard to included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 78 randomized controlled trials (5308 patients) were included. A standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.5 was established as the minimum for a clinically significant reduction in pain. A reduction in pain was associated with PRP at 3 months (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.20) and sustained until 1 year (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.39). Low- to moderate-quality evidence supports a reduction in pain for lateral epicondylitis (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.23) and knee osteoarthritis (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.41) at 1 year. PRP characteristics did not influence results.

CONCLUSION

PRP leads to a reduction in pain; however, evidence for clinically significant efficacy is limited. Available evidence supports the use of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis as well as knee osteoarthritis.

Platelet-rich plasma versus lidocaine as tenotomy adjuvants in people with elbow epicondylopathy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared to lidocaine as a tenotomy adjuvant for people with elbow tendinopathy.

METHODS

Our study was a parallel-group, double-blind, randomized trial involving 71 patients with recalcitrant elbow tendinopathy who received two sessions of ultrasound-guided tenotomy with either PRP or lidocaine in a tertiary public hospital. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with an improvement exceeding 25% reduction in disability (Spanish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaires-DASH-E) at 6 and 12 months; the secondary outcome was the percentage of patients exceeding 25% reduction in pain (VAS-P).

RESULTS

There was no evidence of significant differences in the proportion of patients who experienced clinically relevant improvements. After 6 months, 18 patients (78.59%) in the lidocaine group and 19 patients (73.08%) in the PRP group showed improved function above 25% (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 (0.17 to 4.60)); 21 patients (72.21%) in the lidocaine group versus 22 patients (84.62%) in the PRP group achieved more than 25% pain reduction (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.10 to 2.37). After 12 months, 17 patients (70.83%) in the lidocaine group versus 19 patients (76%) in the PRP group had improved function (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.13 to 3.84), and 19 patients (76%) in the lidocaine group versus 20 patients (90.91%) in the PRP group had improved pain above 25% (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.06 to 2.51). Hypercholesterolemia and baseline vascularization influenced outcomes. There were no differences between groups in the adjusted odds ratios.

CONCLUSION

PRP results in similar improvements to those obtained with lidocaine. Selecting patients according to their pretreatment status can improve treatment efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01945528 , EudraCT 2013-000478-32. Registered 18 August 2013, enrolment of the first participant 10 March 2014.

Platelet-Rich Plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a promising treatment for musculoskeletal maladies and clinical data to date have shown that PRP is safe. However, evidence of its efficacy has been mixed and highly variable depending on the specific indication. Additional future high-quality large clinical trials will be critical in shaping our perspective of this treatment option. The heterogeneity of PRP preparations, both presently and historically, leads sweeping recommendations about its utility impossible to make. This heterogeneity has also made interpreting existing literature more complicated.

Current Clinical Recommendations for Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates current clinical literature on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP), in order to develop evidence-based recommendations for various musculoskeletal indications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Abundant high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis and LP-PRP for osteoarthritis of the knee. Moderate high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for patellar tendinopathy and of PRP injection for plantar fasciitis and donor site pain in patellar tendon graft BTB ACL reconstruction. There is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend PRP for rotator cuff tendinopathy, osteoarthritis of the hip, or high ankle sprains. Current evidence demonstrates a lack of efficacy of PRP for Achilles tendinopathy, muscle injuries, acute fracture or nonunion, surgical augmentation in rotator cuff repair, Achilles tendon repair, and ACL reconstruction. PRP is a promising treatment for some musculoskeletal diseases; however, evidence of its efficacy has been highly variable depending on the specific indication. Additional high-quality clinical trials with longer follow-up will be critical in shaping our perspective of this treatment option.

Chronic lateral epicondylitis: challenges and solutions

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a significant source of pain and dysfunction resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension, radial deviation, and/or forearm supination. Although most cases are self-limiting over several years, controversy exists regarding the best treatment strategy for chronic LE. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), shockwave therapy, and injections with corticosteroids or biologics are all conservative treatment options for LE. For refractory cases, surgical options include open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques. In this review, the current evidence behind these treatment strategies is presented. The data demonstrate that NSAIDs, PT, bracing, and shockwave therapy provide limited benefit for treating LE. Biologics such as platelet-rich plasma and autologous whole-blood injections may be superior to steroid injections in the long-term management of LE. Although the initial results are promising, larger comparative studies on stem cell injections are needed. For refractory LE, open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques are all highly effective, with no method seemingly superior over another. Arthroscopic and percutaneous approaches may result in faster recovery and earlier return to work.

Platelet-rich plasma: myth or reality?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a preparation for therapeutic purposes that is increasingly accepted for various musculoskeletal disorders, due to its theoretical potential to repair tissues with poor healing capacity. Several randomised clinical trials have investigated the capacity of PRP to repair tendons, ligaments, muscles and cartilage, and to date there is level 1a evidence to support its use for lateral epicondylitis, osteoarthritis of the knee, plantar fasciitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy; and level 1b for patellar tendinopathy and osteoarthritis of the hip. Retrospective cohort studies and case series describe promising results with PRP for treating other musculoskeletal disorders. Since its side effects are fewer than those of the control groups, the treatment is considered practically harmless and is being increasingly used. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to establish future indications, and to confirm effectiveness and safety.

How far have biological therapies come in regenerative sports medicine?

INTRODUCTION

Regular engagement in sports produces many health benefits, but also exposes to increased injury risk. The quality of medical care available is crucial not only for sports trauma but also to avoid overuse syndromes and post-traumatic degenerative conditions.

AREAS COVERED

We provide background information on some clinical needs in sport injuries and describe the main families of biological products used in clinical practice. We also discuss limitations of the current clinical experience.

EXPERT OPINION

Sport and exercise impairment affects different segments of the population with different needs. The exceptional demands of elite athletes and subsequent media coverage have created hype around regenerative therapies. Statistical evidence, whether weak (cell products) or moderate (PRPs), is not enough to drive medical decisions because of the heterogeneity of the biological products available and their application procedures. Moreover, the specific needs of the different segments of the population along with the available clinical evidence for each musculoskeletal condition should be considered in the decision-making process. There is urgent need to develop regenerative protocols combined with post-intervention rehabilitation, and gather meaningful clinical data on the safety and efficacy of these interventions in the different populations segments.

Platelet-rich plasma in tendon-related disorders: results and indications

PURPOSE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is currently the most exploited strategy in the clinical practice to provide a regenerative stimulus for tendon healing. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the available evidence on the treatment of the main tendon disorders where PRP is currently applied.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed on the use of PRP as a treatment for tendinopathies focusing on the following sites: Achilles tendon, patellar tendon, rotator cuff tendons, and lateral elbow tendons. The following inclusion criteria for relevant articles were used: clinical trials written in English language up to 21 June 2016 on the use of PRP in the conservative or surgical treatment of the aforementioned tendinopathies.

RESULTS

The research identified the following clinical trials dealing with the application of PRP in the selected tendons: 19 papers on patellar tendon (6 being RCTs: 4 dealing with PRP conservative application and 2 surgical), 24 papers on Achilles tendon (4 RCTs: 3 conservative and 1 surgical), 29 on lateral elbow tendons (17 RCTs, all conservative), and 32 on rotator cuff (22 RCTs: 18 surgical and 3 conservative).

CONCLUSION

Patellar tendons seem to benefit from PRP injections, whereas in the Achilles tendon, PRP application is not indicated neither as a conservative approach nor as a surgical augmentation. Lateral elbow tendinopathy showed an improvement in most of the high-level studies, but the lack of proven superiority with respect to the more simple whole-blood injections still questions its use in the clinical practice. With regard to rotator cuff pathology, the vast majority of surgical RCTs documented a lack of beneficial effects, whereas there is still inconclusive evidence concerning its conservative application in rotator cuff disorders.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review of level I-IV trials, Level IV.

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Tendon and Ligament Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Bias Assessment

BACKGROUND

There has been a surge in high-level studies investigating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for tendon and ligament injuries. A number of meta-analyses have been published, but few studies have focused exclusively on tendon and ligament injuries.

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis assessing the ability of PRP to reduce pain in patients with tendon and ligament injuries.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out in April 2017 using electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Only level 1 studies were included. Platelet and leukocyte count, injection volume, kit used, participant age/sex, comparator, and activating agent used were recorded. The short-term and long-term efficacy of PRP was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) to measure pain intensity. Injury subgroups (rotator cuff, tendinopathy, anterior cruciate ligament, and lateral epicondylitis) were evaluated. Funnel plots and the Egger test were used to screen for publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of potential outliers by removing studies one at a time.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles were included in this review, 21 (1031 participants) of which could be included in the quantitative analysis. The majority of studies published investigated rotator cuff injuries (38.1%) or lateral epicondylitis (38.1%). Seventeen studies (844 participants) reported short-term VAS data, and 14 studies (771 participants) reported long-term VAS data. Overall, long-term follow-up results showed significantly less pain in the PRP group compared with the control group (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.84; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.44; P < .01). Patients treated with PRP for rotator cuff injuries (WMD, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.09; P = .02) and lateral epicondylitis (WMD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.29; P = .01) reported significantly less pain in the long term. Substantial heterogeneity was reported at baseline ( I² = 72.0%; P < .01), short-term follow-up ( I² = 72.5%; P < .01), long-term follow-up ( I² = 76.1%; P < .01), and overall ( I² = 75.8%; P < .01). The funnel plot appeared to be asymmetric, with some missingness at the lower right portion of the plot suggesting possible publication bias.

CONCLUSION

This review shows that PRP may reduce pain associated with lateral epicondylitis and rotator cuff injuries.

Surgical Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

A number of surgical techniques for managing tennis elbow have been described. One of the most frequently performed involves excising the affected portion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB). The results of this technique, as well as most other described surgical techniques for this condition, have been reported as excellent, yet none have been compared with placebo surgery.

HYPOTHESIS

The surgical excision of the degenerative portion of the ECRB offers no additional benefit over and above placebo surgery for the management of chronic tennis elbow.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

This study investigated surgical excision of the macroscopically degenerated portion of the ECRB (surgery; n = 13) as compared with skin incision and exposure of the ECRB alone (sham; n = 13) to treat patients who had tennis elbow for >6 months and had failed at least 2 nonsurgical modalities. The primary outcome measure was defined as patient-rated frequency of elbow pain with activity at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included patient-rated pain and functional outcomes, range of motion, epicondyle tenderness, and strength at 6 months and 2.5 years. All outcome measures up to and including the 6-month follow-up were measured in person; the longer-term questionnaire was conducted in person or over the phone.

RESULTS

The 2 groups, surgery and sham, were similar for age, sex, hand dominance, and duration of symptoms. Both procedures improved patient-rated pain frequency and severity, elbow stiffness, difficulty with picking up objects, difficulty with twisting motions, and overall elbow rating >6 months and at 2.5 years ( P < .01). Both procedures also improved epicondyle tenderness, pronation-supination range, grip strength, and modified Orthopaedic Research Institute-Tennis Elbow Testing System at 6 months ( P < .05). No significant difference was observed between the groups in any parameter at any stage. No side effects or complications were reported. The study was stopped before the calculated number of patients were enrolled (40 per group); yet, a post hoc futility analysis was conducted that showed, based on the magnitude of the differences between the groups, >6500 patients would need to be recruited per group to see a significant difference between the groups at 26 weeks in the primary outcome (patient-rated frequency of elbow pain with activity).

CONCLUSION

With the number of available participants, this study failed to show additional benefit of the surgical excision of the degenerative portion of the ECRB over placebo surgery for the management of chronic tennis elbow.

Adipose tissue extract shows potential for wound healing: in vitro proliferation and migration of cell types contributing to wound healing in the presence of adipose tissue preparation and platelet rich plasma

Growth factors are the key elements in wound healing signaling for cell migration, differentiation and proliferation. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), one of the most studied sources of growth factors, has demonstrated to promote wound healing in vitro and in vivo. Adipose tissue is an alternative source of growth factors. Through a simple lipoaspirate method, adipose derived growth factor-rich preparation (adipose tissue extract; ATE) can be obtained. The authors set out to compare the effects of these two growth factor sources in cell proliferation and migration (scratch) assays of keratinocyte, fibroblast, endothelial and adipose derived stem cells. Growth factors involved in wound healing were measured: keratinocyte growth factor, epidermal growth factor, insulin-like growth factor, interleukin 6, platelet-derived growth factor beta, tumor necrosis factor alfa, transforming growth factor beta and vascular endothelial growth factor. PRP showed higher growth factor concentrations, except for keratinocyte growth factor, that was present in adipose tissue in greater quantities. This was reflected in vitro, where ATE significantly induced proliferation of keratinocytes at day 6 (p < 0.001), compared to plasma and control. Similarly, ATE-treated fibroblast and adipose stem cell cultures showed accelerated migration in scratch assays. Moreover, both sources showed accelerated keratinocyte migration. Adipose tissue preparation has an inductive effect in wound healing by proliferation and migration of cells involved in wound closure. Adipose tissue preparation appears to offer the distinct advantage of containing the adequate quantities of growth factors that induce cell activation, proliferation and migration, particularly in the early phase of wound healing.

The role of rehabilitation after regenerative and orthobiologic procedures for the treatment of tendinopathy: a systematic review

Aim: Significant variability exists in the literature, with no clear consensus to the optimal protocol after a regenerative procedure. Given this uncertainty, the authors systematically reviewed the literature cataloging the different variables that may influence outcomes. Methods: Search was limited to randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies of regenerative procedures for the treatment of tendinopathy. Variables were predetermined, and included: cyrotherapy, pre- and post-procedure nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, recommendations for alternative pain medications, immobilization and duration of rest. Variables were categorized based on the influence of the intervention on the three phases of healing. Results: 749 studies were assessed for eligibility, and 60 studies were included. Significant variability existed in the literature. Conclusion: Despite the importance of rehabilitation after regenerative procedures, there is a paucity of evidence available to guide clinicians and highlights the need for additional validation.