Systemic Review: Is an Intradiscal Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lumbar Disc Degeneration Effective?

Combination of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and platelet-rich plasma hydrogel injection for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) hydrogel injection in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 98 consecutive patients with LDH who underwent either PELD combined with PRP hydrogel injection or PELD alone were reviewed. This retrospective study was performed between January 2019 and January 2021. Clinical outcomes were compared in the visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Macnab criteria. Intervertebral disc height on MRI was measured, and the Pfirrmann grade classification was used pre-operatively and post-operatively.

RESULTS

No severe adverse events were reported during an 18-month follow-up period. VAS scores for back pain were decreased at 1 month, 3 months, and 18 months in the treatment group than that in the control group. JOA score and ODI in the treatment group at 3-month and 18-month follow-up was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate of the Macnab criteria was 92.0% (46/50) in the treatment group and 89.6% (43/48) in the control group (P > 0.05). The comparison of Pfirrmann grading and disc height at 18-month follow-up showed significant difference in two groups (P < 0.05). The recurrence of LDH in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that PELD combined with PRP hydrogel injection to treat patients with LDH is a safe and promising method. PRP injection was beneficial for disc remodelling after PELD.

Clinical outcome and MRI appearance in a group of chronic low back pain patients more than 10 years after discography evaluation and consideration for surgery

BACKGROUND

It is an ongoing debate whether fusion surgery is superior to non-operative treatment for non-specific low back pain (LBP) in terms of patient outcome. Further, the evidence for how signs of intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) correlate with patient outcome is insufficient. Longitudinal studies of low back pain (LBP) patients are thus of interest for increased knowledge. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term MRI appearance in LBP patients 11-14 years after discography.

METHODS

In 2021, 30 LBP patients who had same-day discography and MRI in 2007-2010 were asked to undergo MRI (Th12/L1-L5/S1), complete visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ5D) questionnaires. Patients who had fusion surgery before the follow-up were compared with those without such surgery. MRIs were evaluated on Pfirrmann grade, endplate classification score (EPS), and High Intensity Zones (HIZ). For each disk it was noted if injected at baseline or not.

RESULTS

Of 17 participants (6 male;mean age 58.5 years, range 49-72), 10 (27 disks) had undergone fusion surgery before the follow-up. No differences in VAS, ODI, or EQ5D scores were found between patients with and without surgery (mean 51/32/0.54 vs. 50/37/0.40, respectively; 0.77 > p < 0.65). Other than more segments with EPS ≥ 4 in the surgery group (p < 0.05), no between-group differences were found in longitudinal change in MRI parameters. Of 75 non-fused disks, 30 were injected at baseline. Differences were found between injected and non-injected disks at both baseline and follow-up for Pfirrmann grade and HIZ, and at follow-up for EPS (0.04 > p < 0.001), but none for progression over time (0.09 > p < 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Other than more endplate changes in the surgery group, no differences in longitudinal change of MRI parameters were established between LBP patients treated with or without fusion surgery in the studied cohort. The study also highlights the limited progress of degenerative changes, which may be seen over a decade, despite needle puncture and chronic LBP.

The Analgesic Efficacy of Intradiscal Injection of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate and Culture-Expanded Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Discogenic Pain: A Systematic Review

Pain originating from the intervertebral disc (discogenic pain) is a prevalent manifestation of low back pain and is often challenging to treat. Of recent interest, regenerative medicine options with injectable biologics have been trialed in discogenic pain and a wide variety of other painful musculoskeletal conditions. In particular, the role of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and culture-expanded bone marrow derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs) in treating discogenic pain remains unclear. The primary objective of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence of intradiscal injection with BMAC and culture-expanded BM-MSCs in alleviating pain intensity from discogenic pain. Secondary outcomes included changes in physical function after intradiscal injection, correlation between stromal cell count and pain intensity, and anatomical changes of the disc assessed by radiographic imaging after intradiscal injection. Overall, 16 studies consisting of 607 participants were included in qualitative synthesis without pooling. Our synthesis revealed that generally intradiscal autologous or allogeneic BMAC and culture-expanded BM-MSCs improved discogenic pain compared to baseline. Intradiscal injection was also associated with improvements in physical functioning and positive anatomical changes on spine magnetic resonance imaging (improved disc height, disc water content, Pfirrmann grading) although anatomical findings were inconsistent across studies. However, the overall GRADEscore for this study was very low due to heterogeneity and poor generalizability. There were no serious adverse events reported post intradiscal injection except for a case of discitis.

Intradiscal injection for the management of low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a common clinical problem and a major cause of physical disability, imposing a prominent socioeconomic burden. Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) has been considered the main cause of LBP. The current treatments have limited efficacy because they cannot address the underlying degeneration. With an increased understanding of the complex pathological mechanism of IDD, various medications and biological reagents have been used for intradiscal injection for the treatment of LBP. There is increasing clinical evidence showing the benefits of these therapies on symptomatic relief and their potential for disc repair and regeneration by targeting the disrupted pathways underlying the cause of the disease. A brief overview of the potential and limitations for these therapies are provided in this review, based on the recent and available data from clinical trials and systematic reviews. Finally, future perspectives are discussed.

Biologic Therapy in Chronic Pain Management: a Review of the Clinical Data and Future Investigations

PURPOSE

With the aging population, it is clear that the demand for future chronic pain treatment modalities is at an all-time high. One of the newest treatment modalities that is gaining popularity with both practitioners and patients alike is that of regenerative medicine and the use of stem cells to treat chronic painful conditions. This article aims to distill the most recent, available data from both laboratory research and clinical trials to better illuminate the potentials for these therapies in the treatment of chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are numerous investigations underway using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to treat painful, largely degenerative conditions. A large majority of these investigations focus on osteoarthritis of the knee and have demonstrated significantly improved pain scores. Some of these investigations have demonstrated significantly increased articular cartilage and meniscus growth as well as improved function. These studies have been smaller (n, 18) and need to be corroborated on a macrolevel. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-based therapies have been most extensively studied in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Multiple prospective and randomized trials and meta-analyses have afforded level I evidence in support of PRP's safety and efficacy in chronic knee pain demonstrating both decreased pain (via VAS) and increased functional status (via WOMAC and IKDC). There have been randomized controlled trials examining PRP therapies in treatment degenerative disc disease (intradiscal treatment), facet arthropathy (intra-facet injections), and sacroiliitis (SIJ) which have all yielded similar positive results. Each RTC demonstrated decreased pain scores and increased function but lacks the scale to derive concrete guidelines. Newer investigations are underway examining modified PRP formulas with increased fibrin (PRF) or various growth factors (PRGF) and have shown positive outcomes with respect to osteoarthritic conditions in small trials. Animal trials are underway further investigating these therapies as well as specific gene modulation therapies. This review of the most recent investigations into the application and uses of biologic stem cell-derived treatments for chronic painful conditions should act to illustrate the growing, favorable data for these types of modalities both with respect to pain control and functional improvement.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Lumbar Spondylosis and Sacroiliac Arthropathy: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.