Intra-articular effects of combined xenogenous serum rich in growth factors (SRGF) and vitamin C on histopathology grading and staging of osteoarthritis in rat model

Comparative efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection versus PRP combined with vitamin C injection for partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for managing partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCT) remains controversial. Recent studies related to PTRCTs have shown that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection might be an effective treatment option. Despite the role of vitamin C in collagen synthesis and its antioxidant properties, the effects of combined PRP and vitamin C treatment on rotator cuff repair are not well understood. This study investigated the effect of combined treatment of PRP and vitamin C treatment on PTRCTs.

METHODS

One hundred-ten patients with PTRCTs were randomly allocated to two groups and underwent subacromial injections of either (A) normal saline and platelet-rich plasma or (B) vitamin C and platelet-rich plasma. The Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and visual analog scale were used to evaluate the outcomes before, 1 month after, and 3 months after injection.

RESULTS

At the 3-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of ASES and Constant scores. Although a slight difference favoring group B was noted in functional scores and pain reduction, this difference was not statistically significant. However, both groups demonstrated significant pain reduction over time (p-value < 0.001). Additionally, the enhancement of ASES and Constant scores in both groups was statistically significant (p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, both PRP injection alone and PRP combined with vitamin C led to significant reductions in pain and enhancements in function scores over time (p < 0.001), suggesting the effectiveness of PRP as a non-surgical treatment for PTRCTs within 3 months. While PRP alone showed significant benefits, further research is required to ascertain if the combination therapy offers statistically significant advantages over PRP alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration code: IRCT20230821059205N1.

Comparıson of the effect of the autogenıc and xenogenıc use of platelet-rıch plasma on rabbıt chondrocutaneous composıte graft survıval

The platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become popular in the medical world due to its content of growth factors and numerous studies are experimental. In experimental studies, the preparation and application of PRP are problematic and allogenic PRP transfers have been preffered, because of the difficulties in preparation of autogenic PRP in animal experiments. Xenogenic transfers and their effects have not been studied in this topic. This study aimed to investigate the effect of autogenic and xenogenic use of PRP on composite graft viability.Methods: Two composite grafts are prepared for each ear of nine rabbits. Each ear was randomly divided into three groups. After the procedure, the wound edges and base were injected with 1 cc serum physiologic, autogenic PRP or 1 cc human-derived xenogenic PRP. At 3 weeks, samples were taken, photographic and histopathological evaluations were made.Results: The graft viability was better in autogenic and xenogenic group compared to the control group. In comprasion of autogenic and xenogenic groups, although the macroscopic evaluation revealed better graft viability and less necrosis in the group which had been treated with autogenic PRP, the difference was not statistically significant. The three groups did not significantly differ in terms of inflammation. Vascularization examined histopathologically. CD31 staining, which was used to evaluate angiogenesis, was significantly higher in the autogenic PRP group than the remaining two groups.Conclusion: Although autogenic PRP has better results histopathologically, the xenogenic use of PRP may be an alternative for studies, when macroscopic evaluation is necessary.

Platelet-rich plasma injections induce disease-modifying effects in the treatment of osteoarthritis in animal models

PURPOSE

The mechanisms of action and disease-modifying potential of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment are still not fully established. The aim of this systematic review of preclinical evidence was to determine if PRP injections can induce disease-modifying effects in OA joints.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on animal studies evaluating intra-articular PRP injections as treatment for OA joints. A synthesis of the results was performed investigating the disease-modifying effects of PRP by evaluating studies that compared PRP with OA controls or other injectable products, different PRP formulations or injection intervals, and the combination of PRP with other products. The risk of bias was assessed according to the SYRCLE's tool.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles were included, for a total of 1251 animals. The publication trend remarkably increased over time. PRP injections showed clinical effects in 80% and disease-modifying effects in 68% of the studies, attenuating cartilage damage progression and reducing synovial inflammation, coupled with changes in biomarker levels. Evidence is limited on the best PRP formulation, injection intervals, and synergistic effect with other injectables. The risk of bias was low in 40%, unclear in 56%, and high in 4% of items.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular PRP injections showed disease-modifying effects in most studies, both at the cartilage and synovial level. These findings in animal OA models can play a crucial role in understanding mechanism of action and structural effects of this biological approach. Nevertheless, the overall low quality of the published studies warrants further preclinical studies to confirm the positive findings, as well as high-level human trials to demonstrate if these results translate into disease-modifying effects when PRP is used in the clinical practice to treat OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.