Purpose To investigate the available literature on the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and summarize the current evidence supporting its potential for the injective treatment of joints affected by osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A systematic literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) in April 2020, using the following string: "((bone marrow concentrate) OR (BMC) OR (bone marrow aspirate concentrate) OR (BMAC)) AND (osteoarthritis)", and inclusion criteria: clinical and preclinical (animal) studies of any level of evidence, written in English language, and evaluating the intra-articular or subchondral use of BMAC for the injective treatment of OA joints. Results The publication trend remarkably increased over time. A total of 22 studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis: four preclinical studies and 18 clinical studies, for a total number of 4626 patients. Safety was documented by all studies, with a low number of adverse events. An overall improvement in pain and function was documented in most of the studies, but the clinical studies present significant heterogeneity, few patients, short-term follow-up, and overall poor methodology. Conclusion There is a growing interest in the field of BMAC injections for the treatment of OA, with promising results in preclinical and clinical studies in terms of safety and effectiveness. Nevertheless, the current knowledge is still preliminary. Preclinical research is still needed to optimize BMAC use, as well as high-level large controlled trials to better understand the real potential of BMAC injections for the treatment of patients affected by OA.

PurposeThe 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsForty‐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. ConclusionIntra‐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 evidenceLevel II.

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the evidence about the efficacy of the several synovial fluid (SF) biomarkers proposed for knee osteoarthritis (OA), categorizing them by both molecular characteristics and clinical use according to the BIPEDs criteria, to provide a comprehensive and structured overview of the current literature. Design A systematic review was performed in May 2020 on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases about SF biomarkers in patients with knee OA. The search was limited to articles in the last 20 years on human studies, involving patients with knee OA, reporting SF biomarkers. The evidence for each selected SF biomarker was quantified according to the 6 categories of BIPEDs classification. Results A total of 159 articles were included in the qualitative data synthesis and 201 different SF biomarkers were identified. Among these, several were investigated multiple times in different articles, for a total of 373 analyses. The studies included 13,557 patients with knee OA. The most promising SF biomarkers were C4S, IL-6, IL-8, Leptin, MMP-1/3, TIMP-1, TNF-α, and VEGF. The “burden of disease” and “diagnostic” categories were the most represented with 132 and 106 different biomarkers, respectively. Conclusions The systematic review identified numerous SF biomarkers. However, despite the high number of studies on the plethora of identified molecules, the evidence about the efficacy of each biomarker is supported by limited and often conflicting findings. Further research efforts are needed to improve the understanding of SF biomarkers for a better management of patients with knee OA.

Background: Intra-articular microfragmented adipose tissue (MF-AT) injections have been proposed for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To compare a single injection of MF-AT or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in terms of clinical outcomes and OA progression. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 118 patients with symptomatic knee OA were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of MF-AT or PRP. Patients were evaluated before the injection and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. Primary outcomes were the IKDC subjective score and the KOOS pain subscore at 6 months. Knees were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months with radiography and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS). Results: Both MF-AT and PRP provided a statistically and clinically significant improvement up to 24 months. The improvement in the IKDC subjective score from baseline to 6 months was similar in both MF-AT (41.1 ± 16.3 to 57.3 ± 18.8) and PRP (44.8 ± 17.3 to 58.4 ± 18.1) groups ( P < .0005). The improvement in the KOOS pain subscore from baseline to 6 months was similar in both the MF-AT (58.4 ± 15.9 to 75.8 ± 17.4) and PRP (63.5 ± 17.8 to 75.5 ± 16.1) groups ( P < .0005). Overall, no differences were found between the MF-AT and PRP groups in terms of clinical outcomes, adverse events (18.9% and 10.9%, respectively), and failures (15.1% and 25.5%, respectively). Radiographic and MRI findings did not show changes after the injection. As a secondary outcome, more patients in the MF-AT group with moderate/severe OA reached the minimal clinically important difference for the IKDC score at 6 months compared with the PRP group (75.0% vs 34.6%, respectively; P = .005). Conclusion: A single intra-articular injection of MF-AT was not superior to PRP, with comparable low numbers of failures and adverse events and without disease progression. No differences were found in clinical and imaging results between the 2 biological approaches.