PurposeThe aim of this review was to analyze the available evidence on the clinical application of this biological approach for the injective treatment of cartilage lesions and joint degeneration, together with preclinical studies to support the rationale for the use of platelet concentrates, to shed some light and give indications on what to treat and what to expect from intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP).MethodsAll in vitro, in vivo preclinical and clinical studies on PRP injective treatment in the English language concerning the effect of PRP on cartilage, synovial tissue, menisci, and mesenchymal stem cells were considered. A systematic review on the PubMed database was performed using the following words: (platelet-rich plasma or PRP or platelet concentrate or platelet lysate or platelet supernatant) and (cartilage or chondrocytes or synoviocytes or menisci or mesenchymal stem cells).ResultsFifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria: 26 were in vitro, 9 were in vivo, 2 were both in vivo and in vitro, and 22 were clinical studies. The analysis showed an increasing number of published studies over time. Preclinical evidence supports the use of PRP injections that might promote a favourable environment for joint tissues healing. Only a few high-quality clinical trials have been published, which showed a clinical improvement limited over time and mainly documented in younger patients not affected by advanced knee degeneration.ConclusionsBesides the limits and sometimes controversial findings, the preclinical literature shows an overall support toward this PRP application. An intra-articular injection does not just target cartilage; instead, PRP might influence the entire joint environment, leading to a short-term clinical improvement. Many biological variables might influence the clinical outcome and have to be studied to optimize PRP injective treatment of cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis.Level of evidenceIV.

IV.

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is a low-cost procedure to deliver high concentrations of autologous growth factors (GFs). Platelet activation is a crucial step that might influence the availability of bioactive molecules and therefore tissue healing. Activation of PRP from ten voluntary healthy males was performed by adding 10% of CaCl2, 10% of autologous thrombin, 10% of a mixture of CaCl2 + thrombin, and 10% of collagen type I. Blood derivatives were incubated for 15 and 30 minutes and 1, 2, and 24 hours and samples were evaluated for the release of VEGF, TGF-β1, PDGF-AB, IL-1β, and TNF-α. PRP activated with CaCl2, thrombin, and CaCl2/thrombin formed clots detected from the 15-minute evaluation, whereas in collagen-type-I-activated samples no clot formation was noticed. Collagen type I produced an overall lower GF release. Thrombin, CaCl2/thrombin, and collagen type I activated PRPs showed an immediate release of PDGF and TGF-β 1 that remained stable over time, whereas VEGF showed an increasing trend from 15 minutes up to 24 hours. CaCl2 induced a progressive release of GFs from 15 minutes and increasing up to 24 hours. The method chosen to activate PRP influences both its physical form and the releasate in terms of GF amount and release kinetic.

No abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as a promising option to treat articular defects and early osteoarthritis (OA) stages. However, both their potential and limitations for a clinical use remain controversial. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to examine MSCs treatment strategies in clinical settings, in order to summarize the current evidence of their efficacy for the treatment of cartilage lesions and OA.Among the 60 selected studies, 7 were randomized, 13 comparative, 31 case series, and 9 case reports; 26 studies reported the results after injective administration, whereas 33 used surgical implantation. One study compared the two different modalities. With regard to the cell source, 20 studies concerned BMSCs, 17 ADSCs, 16 BMC, 5 PBSCs, 1 SDSCs, and 1 compared BMC versus PBSCs. Overall, despite the increasing literature on this topic, the evidence is still limited, in particular for high-level studies. On the other hand, the available studies allow to draw some indications. First, no major adverse events related to the treatment or to the cell harvest have been reported. Second, a clinical benefit of using MSCs therapies has been reported in most of the studies, regardless of cell source, indication, or administration method. This effectiveness has been reflected by clinical improvements and also positive MRI and macroscopic findings, whereas histologic features gave more controversial results among different studies. Third, young age, lower BMI, smaller lesion size for focal lesions, and earlier stages of OA joints have been shown to correlate with better outcomes, even though the available data strength does not allow to define clear cutoff values. Finally, definite trends can be observed with regard to the delivery method: currently cultured cells are mostly being administered by i.a. injection, while one-step surgical implantation is preferred for cell concentrates. In conclusion, while promising results have been shown, the potential of these treatments should be confirmed by reliable clinical data through double-blind, controlled, prospective and multicenter studies with longer follow-up, and specific studies should be designed to identify the best cell sources, manipulation, and delivery techniques, as well as pathology and disease phase indications.