Rupture of the Patellar Tendon After Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment: A Case Report

Acute Patellar Tendon Ruptures: An Update on Management

Patellar tendon ruptures can be debilitating injuries. When incomplete, partial tears can be managed nonsurgically with immobilization and progressive rehabilitation. Although complete ruptures remain a relatively uncommon injury, they portend a high level of morbidity. Ruptures typically result from an acute mechanical overload to the extensor mechanism, such as with forced quadriceps contraction and knee flexion. However, chronically degenerated tendons are also predisposed to failure from low-energy injuries. Diagnosis can often be made clinically with recognition of a palpable defect to the tendon, localized patellar tendon tenderness, and inability to actively extend the knee. Diagnosis and surgical planning can be established with radiograph, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging. Surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment, and there have been many recent advances in repair technique, optimal reconstruction strategies, and supplemental fixation. Time to surgery for complete tears remains the most important prognosticator for success. Direct primary repair can be completed with transosseous tunnels, suture anchor repair, or end-to-end repair. Tendon reconstruction can be achieved with or without mechanical or biologic augments. Rehabilitation programs vary in specifics, but return to sport can be expected by 6 months postoperatively.

Platelet-rich plasma for tendinopathy and osteoarthritis: a narrative review

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders include a wide range of degenerative and inflammatory problems, which can affect any part of the muscular and skeletal system. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been a breakthrough in musculoskeletal medicine, especially with its effects to speed up soft tissue, cartilage, and bone healing. It is now thought that stem cells are able to reverse the degenerative process and promote rapid healing. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has received special attention in treating tendinopathy and osteoarthritis. This review aims to do a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence for the efficiency of PRP application in tendinopathy and osteoarthritis.

Main body of the abstract

In osteoarthritis treatment, platelet-rich plasma is thought to influence the whole joint environment by increasing chondrocyte proliferation. The injection of autologous PRP into the joint space and surrounding soft tissues delivers a concentrated dose of these growth factors, which accelerate the healing process and reduce pain.

Short conclusion

Many studies report some benefits in regard to pain and functionality, especially in tendinopathy, but further investigations are needed to incorporate PRP into clinical practice and be a common form of therapy for tendinopathy and osteoarthritis. Caution should be applied with any treatment we use in clinical practice, especially with PRP and other forms of injections.

Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for treatment of trigger finger: study protocol for a prospective randomized triple-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background

Trigger finger is a common hand disorder that limits finger range of motion and causes pain and snapping of the affected finger. Trigger finger is caused by an imbalance of the tendon sheath and the flexor tendon. The initial treatment is generally a local corticosteroid injection around the first annular (A1) pulley. However, it is not unusual that surgical release of the A1 pulley is required. Moreover, adverse events after local corticosteroid injection or operative treatment may occur. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be safe and to reduce symptoms in different tendon pathologies, such as DeQuervain’s disease. However, the effects of PRP on trigger finger have not been studied. The aim of this single-center triple-blind randomized controlled trial is to study whether PRP is non-inferior to corticosteroid injection in treating trigger finger. The secondary outcome is to assess the safety and efficacy of PRP in comparison to placebo.

Methods

The trial is designed as a randomized, controlled, patient-, investigator-, and outcome assessor-blinded, single-center, three-armed 1:1:1 non-inferiority trial. The patients with clinical symptoms of trigger finger will be randomly assigned to treatment with PRP, corticosteroid, or normal saline injection. The primary outcome is Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation and symptom resolution. Secondary outcomes include Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; pain; grip strength; finger active range of motion; and complications. Appropriate statistical methods will be applied.

Discussion

We present a novel RCT study design on the use of PRP for the treatment of trigger finger compared to corticosteroid and normal saline injection. The results of the trial will indicate if PRP is appropriate for the treatment of trigger finger.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04167098. Registered on November 18, 2019.

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.