Efficacy of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis

Neuroimmune modulation of pain and regenerative pain medicine

Regenerative pain medicine, which seeks to harness the body's own reparative capacity, is rapidly emerging as a field within pain medicine and orthopedics. It is increasingly appreciated that common analgesic mechanisms for these treatments depend on neuroimmune modulation. In this Review, we discuss recent progress in mechanistic understanding of nociceptive sensitization in chronic pain with a focus on neuroimmune modulation. We also examine the spectrum of regenerative outcomes, including preclinical and clinical outcomes. We further distinguish the analgesic mechanisms of regenerative therapies from those of cellular replacement, creating a conceptual and mechanistic framework to evaluate future research on regenerative medicine.

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.

Orthobiologics for the Hip Region: A Narrative Review

Management of hip region disorders is challenging. Orthobiologic treatments including platelet rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells, and amniotic injectables have gained popularity as promising treatments despite a lack of robust evidence for their effectiveness. We review rationale and current evidence for orthobiologics for three common hip region conditions: hip osteoarthritis, gluteal tendinopathy, and proximal hamstring tendinopathy. Overall, the current state of evidence is extremely limited for orthobiologic treatments and is predominantly relevant to PRP injections. There is currently a lack of data to support the use of mesenchymal stem cells or amniotic injectables in these conditions of the hip.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, phase III, to evaluate the use of platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in hip coxarthrosis

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To compare efficacy and safety of a home-made platelet-rich plasma (PRP) solution versus hyaluronic acid in patients with hip osteoarthritis not responding to conservative treatment and to correlate cellular composition of PRP to clinical outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a phase III clinical trial, double-blinded, controlled and randomised into two treatment groups (PRP and hyaluronic acid). Patients received one hip ultrasound-guided injection. Follow up was 12 months. Pain was assessed using VAS score, HHS and WOMAC were used as functional scores, analgesia, adverse events, cellular components (PRP group) in peripheral blood and in PRP were recorded. Clinical response was assessed using OARSI criteria.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were included. Both groups improved in VAS, WOMAC and HHS score and reduced the amount of analgesia (p<.05). Significant differences were seen at 1 year post-treatment in HHS score (PRP 70.9 [3.7-58], hyaluronic acid 60.2[43-74.2] p<.05). No adverse events were observed in none of the groups. Platelet concentration was different between responders and non-responders (at 1 month, non-responders 449[438-578] x103 platelets/μl versus responders 565 [481-666] x103 platelets/μl, p<.044). There was a correlation between leukocytes concentration and clinical scores (VAS at six months, r=0.748, p<.013, WOMAC at 6 months r=0.748, p <.013). Patients with early stage hip OA showed higher response rate to PRP compared with late stage (11.51 OR, 95%CI 2.34-50.65, p<.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Platelet-rich plasma injection improved hip function, reduced pain and the use of analgesia. It is important to bear in mind the cellular composition in order to achieve a better clinical response.

The influence of sample size and gender composition on the meta-analysis conclusion of platelet-rich plasma treatment for osteoarthritis

Objective

The magnitude of the therapeutic effects of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on osteoarthritis (OA) is still under debate. The goal of this study that was a systematic review of randomised controlled trials ​of PRP injections for the treatment of OA was to elucidate the therapeutic efficacy of PRP.

Methods

Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, EBSCO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ​were searched from inception to June 2018 for RCTs that compared PRP injections to controls in patients with OA. A random-effects approach was used to compile data and subgroups according to trial size (large trials versus small trials), patient profile (age and gender), and PRP preparation method was performed.

Results

Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. All results had unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Patients treated with PRP compared with control showed statistically relevant pain relief and function improvement at short term (standardised mean difference [SMD] ​= ​−0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.98 to −0.27, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.74, 95% CI: −1.11 to 0.36, P ​= ​0.0001, respectively), medium term (SMD ​= ​−0.53, 95% CI: −0.83 to −0.23, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.50, 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.25, P ​= ​0.0006), and long term (SMD ​= ​−0.69, 95% CI: −1.08 to −0.30, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.68, 95% CI: −0.1.09 to −0.27, P ​= ​0.001, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the data from large trials and from trials composed of less than 50% female patients revealed that therapeutic effects of the treatment are insignificant.

Conclusions

According to the currently available data, PRP injections are beneficial for pain relief and function improvement in patients with OA. This meta-analysis, however, demonstrated that the efficacy of PRP is related to sample size and gender composition. Thus, more randomised controlled trials of high quality and larger patient size, also including gender aspects, are required to understand this phenomenon.

The translational potential of this article

The translation potential of this meta-analysis is that provided another perspective to analyse the treatment effect of PRP for OA. In future research, phenotypes subpopulation and gender difference of OA patient should be considered for PRP treatment.

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.

The use of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injections in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature

Purpose: This review aims to determine whether ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injection has any role in improving clinical outcomes in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Methods: A search of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence database using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search tool was conducted. The PubMed database was also utilised to search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health and Allied and Complimentary Medicine databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis methodology guidance was employed and a quality assessment was performed using the Jadad score. Results: Three randomised clinical trials met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. All three trials were of good quality based on the Jadad score. A total of 115 patients out of 254 received platelet-rich plasma injections under ultrasound guidance. The platelet-rich plasma recipient group included 61 males and 54 females with an age range from 53 to 71 years. Outcome scores show an improvement of symptoms and function maintained up to 12 months following platelet-rich plasma injection. Conclusions: Literature to date concludes that intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections of the hip, performed under ultrasound guidance to treat hip osteoarthritis, are well tolerated and potentially efficacious in delivering long-term and clinically significant pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Larger future trials including a placebo group are required to further evaluate these promising results. Level of evidence: Level I, a systematic review of level I studies.

When is indicated viscosupplementation in hip osteoarthritis?

Background and aim: The incidence of hip osteoarthritis (OA) is increasing in parallel with the aging of the population. The aim of this study is to report the efficacy of an ultrasound-guided intra-articular (IA) hip injection of a single dose of high-weight hyaluronic acid (HA) (2500 kDa) at a follow-up of 12 months. Materials and Methods: 226 patients older than 40 years of age affected by painful hip OA (Kellgren-Lawrence stage 1-2-3) were treated from January 2012 to December 2015 with viscosupplementation. Patients were clinically evaluated before injection (T0) and after 3 months (T3), 6 months (T6) and 1 year (T3) through the WOMAC scale and Harris Hip Score (HHS). Results: During the follow-up period no patients underwent to hip surgery or need adjunctive IA injection of HA. No adverse effects were registered. An improvement in WOMAC and HHS was observed in all patients after treatment. Results showed that patients with grade 2 of osteoarthritis had the higher delta of change in the scores. Discussion: Ultrasound-guided with high weight IA HA injection could be a possibility of treatment in the symptomatic osteoarthritic hip. Subjects with a moderate grade of osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence stage 2) represent the group that could report the maximum benefits from viscosupplementation. (www.actabiomedica.it)

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.

Regenerative Sports Medicine: Past, Present, and Future (Adapted From the PASSOR Legacy Award Presentation; AAPMR; October 2016)

Regenerative medicine has shown dramatic expanse and evolution in the past decade. Within that milieu, physiatrists are taking an active role in research, clinical care delivery, and education. The purpose of this review is to provide a balance among evidence, theory, experience, clinical trends, and the foreseeable future. We focus on the literature that reports the research with the best methodology in each practice area, recognizing that the level of evidence varies substantially among different treatment modalities and conditions. The following elements are included: an overview of the evolution of currently available regenerative techniques, evidence base for each available modality (prolotherapy, platelet rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate and stem cells, adipose-derived stem cells, and amniotic tissue products), general principles in the application of these treatments, and discussion and a vision of what lies ahead. We expect that practitioners will use this review to facilitate clinical decision making and to provide a core knowledge base to assist when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Clinical therapy of hyaluronic acid combined with platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis is the most common degenerative disease of the joints caused by articular cartilage injury, degradation of the joint edge and subchondral bone hyperplasia. Various treatments are used to alleviate the symptoms of patients with knee osteoarthritis, including analgesics and intra-articular injections. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous and multifunctional platelet concentrate of the blood, which stimulates the cartilage healing process and improves the damage caused by articular disease. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is an effective treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis. In the current study, the effectiveness of PRP and HA combination therapy administered via intra-articular injections for patients with knee osteoarthritis was analyzed. A total of 360 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized into four different treatment groups as follows: Double-blind treatment with PRP (2-14 ml); double-blind treatment with HA (0.1-0.3 mg); combination therapy of PRP and HA; and placebo groups. Following treatment, all patients were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Common Toxicity Criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension and proteinuria. The current study demonstrated that PRP and HA treatment significantly improved arthralgia, and PRP treatment was determined to be significantly more effective than HA treatment using the WOMAC pain score (P<0.05). PRP and HA combination treatment significantly improved arthralgia, reduced humoral and cellular immune responses and promoted angiogenesis, which improved the patients' histological parameters compared with PRP or HA treatment alone. These results suggested that PRP and HA combination treatment may be a potential treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis in the future.

Recent advances in hyaluronic acid based therapy for osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a debilitating disease that has increased in prevalence across the world due to the aging population. Currently, physicians use a plethora of treatment strategies to try and slow down the progression of the disease, but none have been shown to ubiquitously treat and cure the disease. One of the strategies uses the high molecular weight molecule hyaluronic acid as either an injectable or oral supplement for treatment. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a relatively new treatment that has shown varied results through several clinical trials. It can be used as a scaffold for engineering new treatments and several new preparations have just been added to the market. A comprehensive search was conducted through several search databases according our inclusion and exclusion criteria. This review included 44 prospective clinical trial investigating the feasibility and efficacy of HA injection for knee, hip, and ankle osteoarthritis. This review will take a closer look at hyaluronic acid and its properties, as well clinical effectiveness and future options.

Osteochondral defects of the talus with a focus on platelet-rich plasma as a potential treatment option: a review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of osteochondral lesions of the talus, to discuss the evidence of the risks and benefits of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a viable treatment option, and to measure the efficacy of PRP using MRI evidence of cartilage regeneration, as well as scales that measure improvement in 'pain' and 'functionality'.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that use PRP in either conservative or intraoperative settings to treat osteochondral defects of the talus.

RESULTS

There are seven studies that compare hyaluronic acid or standard surgical options against PRP in treating osteochondral lesions of the talus. Five studies use PRP as supplemental treatment in intraoperative settings, while two studies use PRP conservatively as intra-articular injections. There were minimal adverse effects. Pain and functionality scores consistently improved in those who underwent PRP treatments over the course of 4 years. MRI showed significant but inconsistent results in chondral regeneration.

CONCLUSION

PRP may show clinical benefit in those with osteochondral lesions of the talus in terms of pain and functionality, although chondral regeneration via MRI is inconsistent. Limitations include the small sample sizes in these seven studies, as well as no standardised formula for PRP preparation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To serve as an overview of the literature regarding PRP treatment for osteochondral lesions of the talus and how this modality may improve patient outcomes in pain, functionality and chondral regeneration. A case is reported to complement the subject review.

Platelet-rich plasma shows beneficial effects for patients with knee osteoarthritis by suppressing inflammatory factors

Knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease that may develop due ageing, obesity, strain, congenital abnormal joints, joint deformity or trauma. It is caused by many factors, such as degradation of articular cartilage injury, joint edge and subchondral bone hyperplasia of reactivity. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood sample that contains highly concentrated platelets and multiple cell growth factors. PRP promotes synovial cell proliferation and differentiation and may recover cartilage morphology. In the present study, the clinical efficacy of PRP was investigated in patients with knee osteoarthritis aged between 18 and 30 years in a phase-III clinical study. Following an 8-week baseline, patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized into once-weekly, double-blind treatment with PRP (2-14 ml) or placebo groups. The results indicated that patients with osteoarthritis treated with PRP had modulated plasma concentrations of inflammatory factors and pro-angiogenic factors compared with the placebo group. Treatment responses were assessed by median percent reduction in inflammatory and pro-angiogenic factors and these improved with PRP treatment compared with the placebo. Clinical data indicated that PRP alleviated knee osteoarthritis and reduced humoral and cellular immune responses that led to beneficial effects on histological parameters. Inflammation was significantly alleviated in patients receiving PRP compared with the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the presence of PRP were hypertension and proteinuria. In conclusion, treatment with PRP for patients with knee osteoarthritis presented beneficial effects in alleviating joint inflammation, cartilage destruction and bone damage, and repairing joint tissue. These results suggested that PRP may be a potential therapeutic agent for knee osteoarthritis.

Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are major public health problems worldwide causing pain, disability and impaired quality of life. This narrative paper discusses platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment for hip and knee OA, with a focus on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the first RCT of PRP in 2012, there has been 15 RCTs in knee OA and three in hip OA, mostly comparing PRP to another intra-articular injection therapy, hyaluronic acid. All studies are of low to moderate methodological quality and use variable PRP protocols. In general, results showed that PRP is a safe treatment with potential to provide symptomatic benefit for OA at least in the short term (up to 12 months). Younger patients with less severe disease may be more responsive. There are no RCTs investigating the effects of PRP on OA structural changes. No definitive conclusions can be made about the effects of PRP in OA given methodological concerns and considerable heterogeneity between studies. Further high-quality research is needed to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of PRP, the patients most likely to benefit and the optimal PRP protocol.

A Call for Standardization in Platelet-Rich Plasma Preparation Protocols and Composition Reporting: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Orthopaedic Literature

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a blood-derived preparation whose use has grown exponentially in orthopaedic practice. However, there remains an unclear understanding of the biological properties and effects of PRP on musculoskeletal healing. Heterogeneous processing methods, unstandardized nomenclature, and ambiguous classifications make comparison among studies challenging. A comprehensive assessment of orthopaedic clinical PRP trials is key to unraveling the biological complexity of PRP, while improving standardized communication. Toward this goal, we performed a systematic review of the PRP preparation protocols and PRP composition utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed from 2006 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were human clinical trials, English-language literature, and manuscripts that reported on the use of PRP in musculoskeletal/orthopaedic conditions. Basic-science articles, editorials, surveys, special topics, letters to the editor, personal correspondence, and nonorthopaedic applications (including cosmetic use or dental application studies) were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 105 studies (in 104 articles) met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, only 11 (10%) provided comprehensive reporting that included a clear description of the preparation protocol that could be used by subsequent investigators to repeat the method. Only 17 studies (16%) provided quantitative metrics on the composition of the final PRP product.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of PRP preparation protocols in clinical studies is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies did not provide sufficient information to allow the protocol to be reproduced. Furthermore, the current reporting of PRP preparation and composition does not enable comparison of the PRP products being delivered to patients. A detailed, precise, and stepwise description of the PRP preparation protocol is required to allow comparison among studies and provide reproducibility.

PRP for Degenerative Cartilage Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

OBJECTIVE

To explore the utilization of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for degenerative cartilage processes and evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to better define its potential effects.

DESIGN

Systematic literature reviews were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane electronic databases till May 2015, using the keywords "platelet-rich plasma OR PRP OR autologous conditioned plasma OR ACP AND cartilage OR chondrocyte OR chondrogenesis OR osteoarthritis (OA) OR arthritis."

RESULTS

The final result yielded 29 articles. Twenty-six studies examined PRP administration for knee OA and 3 involved PRP administration for hip OA. The results included 9 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (8 knee and 1 hip), 4 prospective comparative studies, 14 case series, and 2 retrospective comparative studies. Hyaluronic acid (HA) was used as a control in 11 studies (7 RCTs, 2 prospective comparative studies, and 2 retrospective cohort). Overall, all RCTs reported on improved symptoms compared to baseline scores. Only 2 RCTs-one for knee and one for hip-did not report significant superiority of PRP compared to the control group (HA). Nine out of 11 HA controlled studies showed significant better results in the PRP groups. A trend toward better results for PRP injections in patients with early knee OA and young age was observed; however, lack of uniformity was evident in terms of indications, inclusion criteria, and pathology definitions in the different studies.

CONCLUSION

Current clinical evidence supports the benefit in PRP treatment for knee and hip OA, proven to temporarily relieve pain and improve function of the involved joint with superior results compared with several alternative treatments. Further research to establish the optimal preparation protocol and characteristics of PRP injections for OA is needed.

Treatment of Early Hip Osteoarthritis: Ultrasound-Guided Platelet Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid Injections in a Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose  The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) for symptomatic early osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip.

Methods  A prospective controlled double-blinded randomized trial on 80 patients with hip OA was conducted. The patients were divided in two groups of 40 patients each: group 1 underwent three PRP intra-articular ultrasound-guided injections, whereas group 2 underwent three HA injections. WOMAC, VAS, and Harris Hip Score were evaluated for both groups before and at 6 and 12 months after treatment.

Results  The two groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, and severity of hip OA. Both groups showed a significant improvement from baseline at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups for all the outcome measures. No major complications were observed during the treatment and at follow-ups in both the groups.

Conclusion  PRP did not offer significantly better results compared with HA in patients with moderate signs of OA, and thus it should not be considered as first-line treatment.

Level of Evidence  Level II, randomized controlled trial.

Intraosseous Infiltration of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Severe Hip Osteoarthritis

This work describes a technique of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) infiltration for the treatment of severe hip osteoarthritis (OA). Although the results achieved with intra-articular infiltrations of PRP are promising, they may be insufficient in the long-term for severe hip OA. The technique consists of a combined intra-articular and intraosseous infiltration of PRP to reach all joint tissues, especially the subchondral bone, and hence facilitate a greater distribution of PRP. Diagnosis is based on clinical and radiographic findings, and patients with grade III OA according to the Tönnis scale, as well as patients who have not responded to conventional treatment, are considered candidates for this technique. After an ultrasound-guided intra-articular PRP infiltration is performed, 2 intraosseous infiltrations are conducted with a fluoroscope; the first injection is applied into the acetabulum and the second into the femoral head. However, this technique presents more difficulty than the conventional administration, so it is necessary to consider several aspects described in this work.

Safety and Efficacy of Intra-articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Patients With Ankle Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

An intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, its efficacy in ankle OA has not been investigated yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of an intra-articular injection of PRP in patients with ankle OA during a 24-week period.

METHODS

Twenty ankles of 20 patients with varus-type ankle OA who received intra-articular injections of PRP were evaluated. PRP was extracted from whole blood by using the double-spin technique. Three injections of 2-mL PRP were administered to the ankle at an interval of 2 weeks under ultrasonographic guidance. Adverse events and efficacy were assessed at 4, 12, and 24 weeks after the last injection. Clinical outcomes were assessed by using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) ankle/hindfoot scale, and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q).

RESULTS

No serious adverse effects were observed during the follow-up period. The VAS and JSSF scale scores significantly decreased from baseline to 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment ( P < .001). The mean score in the pain-related subscale of the SAFE-Q significantly improved from baseline to 12 weeks after treatment ( P = .04). Overall, the amount of pain reduction was maximal at 12 weeks after the last injection, and the effect was reduced at 24 weeks. The patients with late-stage OA had worse scores in all outcomes than those with early-stage OA.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injections of PRP resulted in no serious adverse effects and significantly reduced pain in the patients with ankle OA. PRP treatment can be safe and effective and may be an option in the treatment of ankle OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Biologic Options for Articular Cartilage Wear (Platelet-Rich Plasma, Stem Cells, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate)

Biological treatments for articular cartilage repair have gained in popularity in the past decade. Advantages of these therapies include minimal invasiveness, improved healing time, and faster recovery. Biological therapies for cartilage repair include platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and cell-based therapies. These methods have the added benefit of containing growth factors and/or stem cells that aid in recovery and regeneration. The purpose of this article is to review the current cartilage treatment options and the existing literature on outcomes, complications, and safety profile of these products for use in the knee and hip joints.

PRP in OA knee - update, current confusions and future options

Positive results have been uniformly observed by various researchers for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in early osteoarthritis (OA) knee in the past few years. PRP has clearly demonstrated its supremacy in comparison to hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo in various clinical trials and is undoubtedly the best option available for symptomatic treatment in early OA. The release of growth factors from PRP occurs immediately and lasts for around three weeks and the clinical effect tends to wane down by the end of the year. Prolonged and sustained release of growth factors from platelets could possibly help in much better biological healing and sustained clinical effects. PRP in combination with biocompatible carriers could be one way of achieving this. Gelatin hydrogel PRP and chitosan PRP seem to be promising based on early in vitro studies and animal studies. PRP in combination with hyaluronic acid also seems to be additive. This article intends to discuss the present status of the PRP, confusions surrounding its use, upcoming trends and ideas for improvising PRP for use early OA knees based on available evidence.

A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety between autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and Local Anesthetic (LA)/corticosteroid in intra-articular injection for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome.

METHODS

Forty-six eligible patients with lumbar facet joint syndrome were randomized into group A (intra-articular injection with PRP) and group B (intra-articular injection with LA/corticosteroid). The following contents were evaluated: pain visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during flexion, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria for pain relief and applications of post-treatment drugs. All outcome assessments were performed immediately after and at 1 week, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

No significant difference between groups was observed at baseline. Compared with pretreatment, both group A and group B demonstrated statistical improvements in the pain VAS score at rest or during flexion, the RMQ, and the ODI (P < 0.01). And there were significant differences between the 2 groups on the above-mentioned items (P < 0.05). For group B, subjective satisfaction based on the modified MacNab criteria and objective success rate were highest (80% and 85%) after 1 month, but only 50% and 20% after 6 months. However, for group A, they increased over time. In addition, there were no treatment-related complications in either group during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both autologous PRP and LA/corticosteroid for intra-articular injection are effective, easy, and safe enough in the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. However, autologous PRP is a superior treatment option for longer duration efficacy.

Optimisation of platelet concentrates therapy: Composition, localisation, and duration of action

Platelet concentrates (PC) generally refers to a group of products that are prepared from autologous blood intended to enhance healing activities. PC therapy is now very popular in treating musculoskeletal injuries; however, inconsistent clinical results urge the need to understand the working mechanism of PC. It is generally believed that the platelet-derived bioactive factors are the active constituents, and their bioavailability in the vicinity of the lesion sites determines the treatment efficacies. Therefore, the composition, localisation, and duration of the action of PC would be key determinants. In this review, we discuss how different preparations and delivery methods of PC would affect the treatment outcomes with respect to clinical evidence about PC therapy for osteoarthritis, tendinopathies, rotator cuff tears, anterior cruciate ligament injuries, and bone fractures. This review can be used as a quick guide for the use of PC therapy and provide insights for the further optimisation of the therapy in the near future.

Operative Treatment for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: Biologics and Scaffold-Based Therapy

OBJECTIVE

Numerous basic science articles have published evidence supporting the use of biologic augmentation in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). However, a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical outcomes of those treatment modalities in OLT has yet to be published. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence-based overview of clinical outcomes following biologic augmentation to surgical treatments for OLT.

DESIGN

A comprehensive literature review was performed. Two commonly used surgical techniques for the treatment of OLT-bone marrow stimulation and osteochondral autograft transfer-are first introduced. The review describes the operative indications, step-by- step operative procedure, clinical outcomes, and concerns associated with each treatment. A review of the currently published basic science and clinical evidence on biologic augmentation in the surgical treatments for OLT, including platelet-rich plasma, concentrated bone marrow aspirate, and scaffold-based therapy follows.

RESULTS

Biologic agents and scaffold-based therapies appear to be promising agents, capable of improving both clinical and radiological outcomes in OLT. Nevertheless, variable production methods of these biologic augmentations confound the interpretation of clinical outcomes of cases treated with these agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Current clinical evidence supports the use of biologic agents in OLT cases. Nonetheless, well-designed clinical trials with patient-specific, validated and objective outcome measurements are warranted to develop standardized clinical guidelines for the use of biologic augmentation for the treatment of OLT in clinical practice.

The use of platelet-rich plasma to augment conservative and surgical treatment of hip and pelvic disorders

BACKGROUND

In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained popularity within the orthopaedic community as a treatment modality to enhance tissue healing.

PURPOSE

This review aims to concisely present the current indications for PRP injections in the treatment of hip and pelvic pathologies and to describe some novel applications for PRP which have not yet been reported in the literature.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on the non-operative and operative indications for PRP in the treatment of hip and pelvic pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to hip and pelvic pathologies, PRP injections are used most commonly as a non-operative intervention, and have been described in the literature to treat osteoarthritis of the hip joint as well as tendinopathy of the hamstrings, adductor longus, and gluteus medius. In contrast, most of the surgical applications of PRP for the hip are novel, with few reported studies in the literature. Because of the increasing awareness of PRP's beneficial effects on musculoskeletal healing and thus the growing number of indications for its use, this review also describes some novel applications for PRP, including osteitis pubis, post-microfracture of the hip, tears of the rectus femoris, and avulsion of the sartorius muscle.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Platelet-Rich Plasma and Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate in Surgical Treatment for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and concentrated bone marrow aspirate (CBMA) have the potential to improve the quality of cartilage repair in osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). In this review, we describe the basic science and clinical evidence that has been published on the topic of PRP and CBMA on 2 commonly used surgical techniques for the treatment of OLT: bone marrow stimulation and osteochondral autograft transfer.

Hip Osteoarthritis: Etiopathogenesis and Implications for Management

Highly prevalent among the elderly, hip osteoarthritis (OA) carries a heavy burden of disease. Guidelines for the management of hip OA are often extrapolated from knee OA research, despite clear differences in the etiopathogenesis and response to treatments of OA at these sites. We propose that hip OA requires specific attention separate from other OA phenotypes. Our understanding of the etiopathogenesis of hip OA has seen significant advance over the last 15 years, since Ganz and colleagues proposed femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) as an important etiological factor. This narrative review summarizes the current understanding of the etiopathogenesis of hip OA and identifies areas requiring further research. Therapeutic approaches for hip OA are considered in light of the condition’s etiopathogenesis. The evidence for currently adopted management strategies is considered, especially those approaches that may have disease-modifying potential. We propose that shifting the focus of hip OA research and public health intervention to primary prevention and early detection may greatly improve the current management paradigm.

Evaluation and Management of Hip and Pelvis Injuries

Injuries to the hip and pelvis among runners can be among the most challenging to treat. Advances in the understanding of running biomechanics as it pertains to the lumbopelvic and hip regions have improved the management of these conditions. Conservative management with an emphasis on activity modification and neuromuscular exercises should comprise the initial plan of care, with injection therapies used in a supportive manner.

Interventional Techniques for Management of Pain in Older Adults

Chronic pain in older patients is often treated with pain medications, physical rehabilitation, interventional pain management, and/or psychological interventions. The administration of pain medications is the most common form of chronic pain treatment. Physiologic changes in older adults make them more susceptible to the potential side effects of oral pain medications, especially opioids. Interventional pain management offers an alternative treatment option. This article reviews some of the interventional techniques used to treat the most common sites of pain in older adults: back, knee, and hip.

Viscosupplementation with intra-articular hyaluronic acid for hip disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip joint diseases are common in adult population and their prevalence increases with age. Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and femoroacetabular impingement are the most common chronic diseases in the hip joint. Viscosupplementation with exogenous hyaluronic acid (HA) is one of the most widely used conservative treatment aiming to improve synovial fluid properties and to decrease pain. There is no global consensus on the type of HA, method of injection and frequency, or on its efficacy in hip joint.

METHODS

We selected published data in English in the PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases up to March 2016 about hyaluronic acid injections in hip disorders.

RESULTS

26 articles were included following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of standardization of HA injections for hip conditions. Our results suggest that this is the best conservative therapy before surgery and it can act on pain relief and function however there is no evidence to prove its ability to modify the morphological structure of the pathological hip and the natural history of the disease. There are few data about the use of HA in other hip disorders rather than osteoarthritis. The most relevant evidence seems to show the utility of HA injections in improving synovial inflammation, but only a few studies have been conducted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Differences Regarding Branded HA in Italy, Part 2: Data from Clinical Studies on Knee, Hip, Shoulder, Ankle, Temporomandibular Joint, Vertebral Facets, and Carpometacarpal Joint

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study is to collect scientific data on all branded hyaluronic acid (HA) products in Italy that are in use for intra-articular (IA) injection in osteoarthritis (OA) compared with that reported in the leaflet.

METHODS

An extensive literature research was performed for all articles reporting data on the IA use of HA in OA. Selected studies were taken into consideration only if they are related to products based on HAs that are currently marketed in Italy with the specific joint indication for IA use in patients affected by OA.

RESULTS

Sixty-two HA products are marketed in Italy: 30 products are indicated for the knee but only 8 were proved with some efficacy; 9 products were effective for the hip but only 6 had hip indication; 7 products proved to be effective for the shoulder but only 3 had the indication; 5 products proved effective for the ankle but only one had the indication; 6 products were effective for the temporomandibular joint but only 2 had the indication; only 2 proved effective for vertebral facet joints but only 1 had the indication; and 5 products proved effective for the carpometacarpal joint but only 2 had the indication.

CONCLUSIONS

There are only a few products with some evidences, while the majority of products remain without proof. Clinicians and regulators should request postmarketing studies from pharmaceuticals to corroborate with that reported in the leaflet and to gather more data, allowing the clinicians to choose the adequate product for the patient.

Infiltrative therapy as conservative treatment in hip osteoarthritis: a literature review

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a very common disease, its prevalence increases with age and is a frequent cause of disability.Osteoarthritis is characterised by joint pain, stiffness and loss of range of motion. Overall, as many as 40% of those aged over 65 years in the community may have symptomatic OA of the knee or hip (1). OA results from a complex interaction of biomechanical and biochemical factors and is characterised by cartilage disruption and hypertrophy of bone. Intraarticular proinflammatory cytokines and proteinases in OA interfere with the synthesis of hyaluronic acid (HA), a complex glycosaminoglycan composed of repeated disaccharide units to form a linear polymer, resulting in an HA with a significantly reduced molecular weight and a reduction in synovial fluid viscoelasticity (2-3). Loss of normal characteristics of HA leads to the degradation of the articular cartilage and the disruption of the mechanical and homeostasis of the joint.Several pharmaceutical approaches, such as analgesics, non steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, COX-2 inhibitors and steroids, have been proposed (4), with the aim of reducing pain and maintaining and/or improving joint function. However, none of these options has shown to delay the progression of osteoarthritis or reverse joint damage.Infiltrative hip therapy involves injecting into the joint the drugs or medicinal substances that are used primarily to control the symptoms of the disease, such as pain and functional limitation.The aim of this review is to analyse existing infiltrative alternatives for hip osteoarthritis, and describe our experience.

Ultrasound-Guided Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid, Separately and in Combination, for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections has been evaluated in knee chondroplasty and osteoarthritis (OA); however, little evidence of its efficacy in hip OA exists.

PURPOSE

To compare the therapeutic efficacy of autologous PRP, hyaluronic acid (HA), or a combination of both (PRP+HA) in hip OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Patients aged between 18 and 65 years who were treated with outpatient surgery and who had hip OA and pain intensity at baseline of >20 on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) were recruited for this study. Exclusion criteria were extensive surgery; presence of excessive deformities; or rheumatic, infective, cardiovascular, or immune system disorders. The primary outcome measure was a change in pain intensity as assessed by the VAS at 2, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and concentration of growth factors in PRP and their correlation with clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by assessors and collectors blinded to the type of treatment administered.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups and received 3 weekly injections of either PRP (44 patients), PRP+HA (31 patients), or HA (36 patients). At all follow-ups, the PRP group had the lowest VAS scores. In particular, at 6-month follow-up, the mean VAS score was 21 (95% CI, 15-28) in the PRP group, 35 (95% CI, 26-45) in the PRP+HA group, and 44 (95% CI, 36-52) in the HA group (P < .0005 [PRP vs HA] and P = .007 [PRP vs PRP+HA]; F = 0.663). The WOMAC score of the PRP group was significantly better at 2-month follow-up (mean, 73; 95% CI, 68-78) and 6-month follow-up (mean, 72; 95% CI, 67-76) but not at 12-month follow-up. A significant, "moderate" correlation was found between interleukin-10 and variations of the VAS score (r = 0.392; P = .040). Significant improvements were achieved in reducing pain and ameliorating quality of life and functional recovery.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated that intra-articular PRP injections offer a significant clinical improvement in patients with hip OA without relevant side effects. The benefit was significantly more stable up to 12 months as compared with the other tested treatments. The addition of PRP+HA did not lead to a significant improvement in pain symptoms.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation of Arthroscopic Hip Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Prospective Study With 24-Month Follow-up

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical and immunologic effects of intra-articular doses of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in arthroscopic hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement.

METHODS

Preoperatively, patients were randomized either to receive an intra-articular injection of PRP (group I, n = 30) or not to receive PRP (group II, n = 27) at the end of hip arthroscopic surgery. To evaluate the clinical outcome and follow-up, we used the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) 3, 6, and 24 months after surgery. Pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale 24 hours, 48 hours, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery. The radiologic outcome was analyzed using radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) obtained before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Labral integration and joint effusion were evaluated with MRI at 6 months. For statistical analysis, an independent t test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used (P < .05 was considered statistically significant).

RESULTS

The visual analog scale score 48 hours after surgery was 3.04 in group I compared with 5.28 in group II (P < .05). At the 3-month follow-up, the mHHS was 91.79 in group I versus 90.97 in group II (P = .65). At the 24-month follow-up, the mHHS was 93.41 in group I (P = .56) versus 92.32 in group II (P = .52). At the 6-month follow-up, MRI showed no effusion in 36.7% of patients in group I versus 21.1% of patients in group II (P = .013). Regarding labral integration, no statistical differences were observed between the groups (P = .76).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized study, PRP resulted in lower postoperative pain scores at 48 hours and fewer joint effusions at 6 months. These findings suggest that PRP may have a benefit regarding postoperative inflammation; however, the long-term clinical benefit is unclear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, lesser-quality randomized controlled trial.

Utility of Intra-articular Hip Injections for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

Background:

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition that is becoming increasingly recognized as a common etiology of hip pain in athletes, adolescents, and adults. However, history and clinical examination are often inconclusive in reaching a diagnosis, while imaging often detects asymptomatic abnormalities. Treatment has traditionally been limited to surgery, with the role of conservative management remaining unclear.

Purpose:

To evaluate the utility of the intra-articular hip injection in the diagnosis and management of FAI.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were screened in duplicate for studies published between January 1946 and January 2014. Search terms included femoroacetabular impingement, hip impingement, and intra-articular injection. Quality assessment using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale was completed for all included studies. Data evaluated included study design, study objectives, number of hips, injected product, duration of pain relief, and outcomes measured.

Results:

Our search yielded 8 studies involving 281 hips. Studies were categorized into diagnostic (4 studies), therapeutic (3 studies), and prognostic (1 study) applications. Patients with FAI and its degenerative sequelae obtained greater relief from diagnostic intra-articular hip injection than those without (P < .05). The diagnostic intra-articular injection performed under ultrasound guidance was better tolerated than injections performed under fluoroscopic guidance (pain rating, 5.6 vs 3.0; P < .1). Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid was the most effective at providing pain relief (in 23 patients), with significant improvements of functional outcome measures (Harris Hip Score, visual analog scale) present at 12 months. Pooled results with corticosteroid injection resulted in improvement in only 15% (9/60) of patients at 6 weeks. A negative response to intra-articular hip injection was a strong predictor for poor surgical outcomes.

Conclusion:

The results of this review suggest that (1) pain relief obtained from an intra-articular hip injection supports a diagnosis of FAI, (2) therapeutic relief at 12 months may be achieved, particularly with hyaluronic acid, and (3) a negative response to preoperative injections may predict poor short-term surgical outcomes. Additional large studies are required to build on the small number of studies included in this review, and further delineate the role of intra-articular hip injection in the management of FAI.

Does platelet-rich plasma have a role in the treatment of osteoarthritis?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been generating considerable attention as an intra-articular treatment to alleviate the symptoms of osteoarthritis. Activated platelets release a host of soluble mediators such as growth factors and cytokines, thereby inducing complex interactions that vary across tissues within the joint. In vivo, PRP may promote chondrocyte proliferation and differentiation. The available data are somewhat conflicting regarding potential effects on synovial cells and angiogenesis modulation. PRP probably exerts an early anti-inflammatory effect, which may be chiefly mediated by inhibition of the NF-κB pathway, a hypothesis that requires confirmation by proof-of-concept studies. It is far too early to draw conclusions about the efficacy of PRP as a treatment for hip osteoarthritis. The only randomized trial versus hyaluronic acid showed no significant difference in effects, and no placebo-controlled trials are available. Most of the randomized trials in knee osteoarthritis support a slightly greater effect in alleviating the symptoms compared to visco-supplementation, most notably at the early stages of the disease, although only medium-term data are available. Many uncertainties remain, however, regarding the best administration regimen. Serious adverse effects, including infections and allergies, seem rare, although post-injection pain is more common than with other intra-articular treatments for osteoarthritis.

PRP and articular cartilage: a clinical update

The convincing background of the recent studies, investigating the different potentials of platelet-rich plasma, offers the clinician an appealing alternative for the treatment of cartilage lesions and osteoarthritis. Recent evidences in literature have shown that PRP may be helpful both as an adjuvant for surgical treatment of cartilage defects and as a therapeutic tool by intra-articular injection in patients affected by osteoarthritis. In this review, the authors introduce the trophic and anti-inflammatory properties of PRP and the different products of the available platelet concentrates. Then, in a complex scenario made of a great number of clinical variables, they resume the current literature on the PRP applications in cartilage surgery as well as the use of intra-articular PRP injections for the conservative treatment of cartilage degenerative lesions and osteoarthritis in humans, available as both case series and comparative studies. The result of this review confirms the fascinating biological role of PRP, although many aspects yet remain to be clarified and the use of PRP in a clinical setting has to be considered still exploratory.

Symposium: evidence for the use of intra-articular cortisone or hyaluronic acid injection in the hip

The primary purpose of this review article is to discuss the role of diagnostic, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and femoroacetabular impingement (FIA). These treatments play an important biological role in the non-operative management of these conditions. Two independent reviewers performed an search of PubMed for articles that contained at least one of the following search terms pertaining to intra-articular hip injection-local anaesthetic, diagnostic, ultrasound, fluoroscopic, image guided, corticosteroid, HA, PRP, OA, labral tears and FAI. Seventy-two full text articles were suitable for inclusion. There were 18 articles addressing the efficacy of diagnostic intra-articular hip injections. With respect to efficacy in OA there were 25 articles pertaining to efficacy of corticosteroid, 22 of HA and 4 of PRP. There were three articles addressing the efficacy of biologics in FAI. Diagnostic intra-articular hip injections are sensitive and specific for differentiating between intra-articular, extra-articular and spinal causes of hip symptoms. Ultrasound and fluoroscopy improves the precision of intra-articular positioning of diagnostic injections. Corticosteroids are more effective than HA and PRP in alleviating pain from hip OA. A higher dose of corticosteroids produces a longer benefit but volume of injection has no significant effect. Intra-articular corticosteroids do not increase infection rates of subsequent arthroplasty. There is currently limited evidence to warrant the routine use of therapeutic injections in the management of labral tears and FIA.

Platelet-rich plasma to treat ankle cartilage pathology - from translational potential to clinical evidence: a systematic review

Platelet-rich Plasma (PRP) is a fascinating biological treatment showing promising results for the management of cartilage disorders. However, despite the step forwards in this research area and the increasing use of PRP in clinical practice, its use remains still controversial and especially its application as injective treatment for ankle cartilage pathology have been scarcely investigated.

The aim of this paper is to describe the translational evidence for the use of PRP in cartilage treatment and to systematically review all the available evidence regarding the clinical application of PRP for ankle cartilage disorders, in order to understand what is the current state of the art for this specific clinical indication, underlining both limits and potential of this biological strategy.

A systematic review of the clinical literature was performed on the use of PRP to treat ankle cartilage disorders and 7 papers were identified. PRP has been used in two different ways: 5 of the available papers focus on its use as an augmentation procedure to various surgical techniques for cartilage regeneration, while only two studies report its conservative application through intra-articular injections. Based on the limited number of clinical studies available on this topic, this systematic review showed the lack of major adverse events related to PRP and overall good results for the treatment of ankle cartilage pathology, thus confirming the translational potential of this biological treatment suggested by several preclinical studies. Further high quality clinical trials in the ankle are still needed to clarify proper indications and best applicative modalities.