Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is gaining large interest in clinical practice as a minimally invasive injective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Different preparation methods are available, and the presence of leukocytes, deemed detrimental in some preclinical studies, is one of the most debated aspects regarding PRP efficacy. Purpose: To compare the safety and effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) for the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 192 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) were randomly allocated to 3 weekly injections of LR-PRP or LP-PRP. LP-PRP was obtained with a filter for leukodepletion. LR-PRP and LP-PRP were divided into aliquots of 5 mL, with a mean platelet concentration of 1146.8 × 109/L and 1074.9 × 109/L and a mean leukocyte concentration of 7991.4 × 106/L and 0.1 × 106/L, respectively. Patients were evaluated at baseline and thereafter at 2, 6, and 12 months for the primary outcome, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score; and for secondary outcomes, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, EuroQol–visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), and Tegner score. Results: No differences between groups were observed in terms of absolute values or improvement of the clinical scores across all follow-up intervals. The mean IKDC subjective score at baseline and 12 months improved from 45.6 to 60.7 in the LR-PRP group as compared with 46.8 to 62.9 in the LP-PRP group (P =.626). No severe adverse events were described in either group, although 15 mild adverse events (knee pain or swelling) were reported: 12.2% for LR-PRP and 4.7% for LP-PRP (P =.101). No statistically significant difference was also found between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in terms of failures (7.8% vs 3.5%, P =.331). Conclusion: This double-blind randomized trial showed that 3 intra-articular LR-PRP or LP-PRP injections produced similar clinical improvement in the 12 months of follow-up in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Both treatment groups reported a low number of adverse events, without intergroup differences. The presence of leukocytes did not significantly affect the clinical results of PRP injections. Registration: NCT02923700 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have been proposed as a new conservative option for knee degeneration to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention. Although the current literature provides some evidence on the benefits of this technique compared with viscosupplementation, no studies have been performed to compare their long-term effects. Purpose: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes provided by intra-articular injections of either PRP or hyaluronic acid (HA) to treat knee degenerative disease. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients with a history of chronic symptomatic knee degenerative changes and osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-3) were enrolled: 192 patients were randomized to undergo 3 blinded weekly intra-articular injections of either PRP or HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated before the injection and then at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months and a mean of 64.3 months (SD, 7.8 months) of follow-up. Evaluation was based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective (main outcome), EuroQol visual analog scale, and Tegner scores; 167 patients reached the final evaluation. Results: Both treatments were effective in improving knee functional status and symptoms over time: Mean ± SD IKDC subjective score improved significantly for both PRP and HA groups (P < .0005) and remained stable over time up to 24 months (from 53.3 ± 14.3 to 67.3 ± 18.1 and from 50.3 ± 13.2 to 62.1 ± 20.8 for PRP and HA groups, respectively). At final evaluation, a significant IKDC reduction was observed in both treatment groups, with the PRP group still presenting significantly higher values compared with baseline: PRP 60.5 ± 19.0 (P < .001 vs baseline), HA 55.7 ± 18.8 (not significant vs baseline). A comparative analysis showed no significant intergroup difference in any of the clinical scores at any follow-up point. The median duration of patient subjective perception of symptomatic relief was 9 months for HA and 12 months for PRP (not significant). The only significant difference was observed in the rate of reintervention at 24 months, which was significantly lower in the PRP group (22.6% vs 37.1%, P = .036). Conclusion: Both treatments were effective in improving knee functional status and symptoms over time. PRP did not provide an overall superior clinical improvement compared with HA in terms of either symptomatic-functional improvement at different follow-up points or effect duration. Registration: NCT01670578 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disease that will affect almost half the population at some point in their lives through pain and decreased functional capacity. New nonoperative options are being proposed to treat earlier stages of joint degeneration to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention. Purpose: To evaluate the benefit provided by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections to treat knee joint degeneration in comparison with hyaluronic acid (HA), the most common injective treatment currently adopted for this condition. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 443 patients were screened, and 192 of them were enrolled in the study according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) unilateral symptomatic knee with history of chronic pain (at least 4 months) or swelling and (2) imaging findings of degenerative changes (Kellgren-Lawrence score of 0-3 at radiographs or MRI evidence of degenerative chondropathy). Patients underwent 3 weekly intra-articular injections of either PRP or HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline and then at 2, 6, and 12 months of follow-up using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score (main outcome), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, EuroQol visual analog scale, and Tegner score. Range of motion, transpatellar circumference, patient satisfaction, and adverse events were also recorded. Results: Two patients reported severe pain and swelling after HA injections, while no major adverse events were noted in the PRP group. However, PRP presented overall significantly more postinjection swelling and pain. Both treatments proved to be effective in improving knee functional status and reducing symptoms: the IKDC score in the PRP group rose from 52.4 ± 14.1 to 66.2 ± 16.7 at 12 months (P < .0005), and in the HA group it rose from 49.6 ± 13.0 to 64.2 ± 18.0 at 12 months (P < .0005). A similar trend was observed for all the clinical scores used. The comparative analysis of the 2 treatments showed no significant intergroup difference at any follow-up evaluation in any of the clinical scores adopted. Conclusion: PRP does not provide a superior clinical improvement with respect to HA, and therefore it should not be preferred to viscosupplementation as injective treatment of patients affected by knee cartilage degeneration and OA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]