Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Grade 3 Symptomatic Degenerative Meniscal Lesions: A 1-Year Follow-up Prospective Study

Degenerative Meniscus Tears Treated Nonoperatively With Platelet-Rich Plasma Yield Variable Clinical and Imaging Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To perform a systematic review on clinical and radiologic outcomes for meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

Methods

A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using keywords and Boolean operators in SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials in April 2023. Inclusion criteria were limited to Level I to IV human studies reporting on outcomes of meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with PRP.

Results

A total of 6 studies, consisting of 184 patients, were identified. There was 1 Level I study and 5 Level IV studies. Mean patient age was 47.8 ± 7.9 years, with 62% (n = 114/184) being female. The medial meniscus was treated in 95.7% (n = 157/164) of patients. Mean follow-up ranged from 75.9 days to 31.9 months. Meniscus tears were generally described as chronic, degenerative, or intrasubstance. In 4 studies, magnetic resonance imaging revealed variable improvement in meniscus grade with complete healing in 0% to 44% of patients and partial healing in 0% to 40% of patients. Four of 5 studies reported significant statistical improvement in pain from baseline to final follow-up. Studies reporting on clinical outcomes showed significant improvements Lysholm score (2 studies), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score total score (2 studies), and Tegner score (1 study). Successful return to sport occurred in 60% to 100% of patients. Two studies reported that most patients were either very satisfied or satisfied following treatment.

Conclusions

The use of PRP injections for the treatment of meniscus tears led to variable results based on postoperative magnetic resonance evaluation and improvements in clinical outcomes, although the clinical significance remains unclear. The heterogeneity of PRP protocols, short-term follow-up, and lack of comparative studies limit findings.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Current Status and Advancements in Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment modality has been around for the last four decades, but only truly gained popularity over the last 10 to 15 years in medicine, in a variety of fields ranging from regenerative medicine to infertility treatment. It has gained popularity, especially in treating musculoskeletal conditions where the bulk of research has been performed and published. There is level I evidence available supporting its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), epicondylitis, bursitis, compressive neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, muscular injuries and osteochondral lesions. Most published research with regards to PRP has been focused on knee OA (limited research in shoulder, elbow, and foot and ankle OA), lateral epicondylitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, whereas spinal and hand conditions have limited research available. Tendinopathies and partial tendon tears have conflicting evidence available, with level I evidence supporting PRP's use in rotator cuff tendinopathies and tears, with contradictory level I evidence discouraging its use in patella and Achilles tendinopathies and tears. The available evidence regarding the use of PRP continues to produce conflicting results, but despite this, there is an ongoing increase in the popularity and use of PRP in patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

High survival rate after the combination of intrameniscal and intraarticular infiltrations of platelet-rich plasma as conservative treatment for meniscal lesions

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of applying a combination of intrameniscal and intraarticular infiltrations of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in patients with meniscal tears, analyzing its failure rate and clinical evolution, as well as factors that may influence the positive response to this treatment.

METHODS

Three hundred and ninety-two cases out of 696 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this work. Survival and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were collected and analyzed. Survival rate was defined as the percentage of patients who did not undergo meniscus surgery during their follow-up time. Patients were asked to complete the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at baseline, 6 months and 18 months. Other patient- and pathology-related variables were collected. Blood and PRP samples were randomly tested as a quality control measure. Survival and comparative statistical tests, and multivariate regression were performed for the analysis of the variables.

RESULTS

The PRP applied had a platelet concentration factor of 1.9X in respect to blood levels, with no leukocytes or erythrocytes. Thirty-eight patients required surgical intervention after treatment reaching a survival rate of 90.3% with an estimated mean survival time of 54.4 months. The type of injury (P = 0.002) and the presence of chondropathy were risk factors for surgical intervention after PRP treatment (P = 0.043). All KOOS scores showed a significant statistical increase from baseline to 6 months (N = 93) and 18 months (N = 66) (P < 0.0001). The number of cases with minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) at 6 months and 18 months post-treatment was 65 (69.9%) and 43 (65.2%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of intrameniscal and intraarticular PRP infiltrations is a valid conservative treatment for meniscal injuries avoiding the need for surgical intervention. Its efficacy is higher in horizontal tears and decreases when joint degeneration is present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Gel Matrix (PRP-GM): Description of a New Technique

Several musculoskeletal conditions are triggered by inflammatory processes that occur along with imbalances between anabolic and catabolic events. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous product derived from peripheral blood with inherent immunomodulatory and anabolic properties. The clinical efficacy of PRP has been evaluated in several musculoskeletal conditions, including osteoarthritis, tendinopathy, and osteonecrosis. When used in combination with hyaluronic acid (HA), a common treatment alternative, the regenerative properties of PRP are significantly enhanced and may provide additional benefits in terms of clinical outcomes. Recently, a new PRP-derived product has been reported in the literature and is being referred to as "plasma gel". Plasma gels are obtained by polymerizing plasmatic proteins, which form solid thermal aggregates cross-linked with fibrin networks. Plasma gels are considered to be a rich source of growth factors and provide chemotactic, migratory, and proliferative properties. Additionally, clot formation and the associated fibrinolytic reactions play an additional role in tissue repair. There are only a few scientific articles focusing on plasma gels. Historically, they have been utilized in the fields of aesthetics and dentistry. Given that the combination of three products (PRP, HA, and plasma gel) could enhance tissue repair and wound healing, in this technical note, we propose a novel regenerative approach, named "PRP-HA cellular gel matrix" (PRP-GM), in which leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) is mixed with a plasma gel (obtained by heating the plasma up) and HA in one syringe using a three-way stopcock. The final product contains a fibrin-albumin network entangled with HA's polymers, in which the cells and biomolecules derived from PRP are attached and released gradually as fibrinolytic reactions and hyaluronic acid degradation occur. The presence of leukocytes, especially monocytes and macrophages, promotes tissue regeneration, as type 2 macrophages (M2) possess an anti-inflammatory feature. In addition, HA promotes the viscosuplementation of the joint and induces an anti-inflammatory response, resulting in pain relief. This unique combination of biological molecules may contribute to the optimization of regenerative protocols suitable for the treatment of degenerative musculoskeletal diseases.

Platelet-rich plasma use in meniscus repair treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

Background

There is conflicting clinical evidence whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapies could translate to an increased meniscus healing rate and improved functional outcomes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the failure rate and patient-reported functional outcomes in meniscus repair augmented with and without PRP.

Methods

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of meniscus repair performed with PRP versus without PRP. The primary outcome was the meniscus repair failure rate, while the secondary outcomes were knee-specific patient-reported outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm knee scale, visual analog scale, Tegner activity level score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying the studies according to the PRP preparation technique to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Our meta-analysis included nine studies (two RCTs and seven non-RCTs) with 1164 participants. The failure rate in the PRP group was significantly lower than that in the non-PRP group [odds ratio: 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42, 0.96), P = 0.03]. Furthermore, the PRP group was associated with a statistically significant improvement in the visual analog scale for pain [Mean difference (MD): − 0.76, 95% CI (− 1.32, − 0.21), P = 0.007] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-symptom [MD: 8.02, 95% CI (2.99, 13.05), P = 0.002] compared with the non-PRP group. However, neither the IKDC score nor the Lysholm knee scale showed any differences between the two groups. In addition, the results of subgroup analyses favored PRP over platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) regarding the IKDC score.

Conclusions

Although meniscus repairs augmented with PRP led to significantly lower failure rates and better postoperative pain control compared with those of the non-PRP group, there is insufficient RCT evidence to support PRP augmentation of meniscus repair improving functional outcomes. Moreover, PRP could be recommended in meniscus repair augmentation compared with PRFM. PRFM was shown to have no benefit in improving functional outcomes.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation does not result in more favourable outcomes in arthroscopic meniscal repair: a meta-analysis

Background

The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP.

Methods

The present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase were accessed in August 2021. All the clinical trials which compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP were included.

Results

Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were included: 38% (318 of 837 patients) were women; the mean age of the patients was 35.6 (range, 20.8–64.3) years; the mean follow-up was 26.2 (range, 6–54) months. Similarity was found in analogue scale (VAS) (P = 0.5) and Lysholm (P = 0.9), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (P = 0.9). Similarity was found in the rate of failure (P = 0.4) and rate of revision (P = 0.07).

Conclusion

The current published scientific evidence does not support PRP augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair.

Clinical outcome and risk factor predictive for failure of autologous PRP injections for low-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

To report the 5-year clinical efficacy of PRP intra articular injections in knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate the risk factors predictive for treatment failure and poor clinical outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 118 patients treated for low to moderate knee OA demonstrated by X-Ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with autologous PRP injection from 2014 to 2018 with a mean 51.1 ± 14.8 (range 29 to 89) months follow-up. All the patients were evaluated with Lysholm and WOMAC score. The role of Kellgren Lawrence (KL) grade, patello-femoral (PF) degeneration, age, body mass index (BMI), relevant comorbilities, smoking status, gender, previous surgery or conservative measures were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement of all outcome measures at final follow-up and high satisfaction rate (79.7%). The overall failure rate was of 15.3% after a mean of 57.7 ± 15.1 (range 33 to 85) months. The BMI and the KL grade were identified as significant independent risk factor related to failure of autologous PRP injection. Patients under 60 reported significantly higher Tegner activity scale (p = 0.032) at final follow-up. Patients with KL grade 3 and patients with PF MRI-KL grade 3 had significantly lower Lysholm scores (p = 0.026 and p = 0.042 respectively) at final assessment. Younger patients with lower BMI and lower grade of radiographic OA had significantly longer therapeutic benefit (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intra articular PRP injections led to a significant clinical improvement in middle-aged adults with a low to moderate knee OA. BMI and high KL grade have been identified as significant risk factors predictive for failure at mid-term follow-up.