After developing vaccines for COVID-19, the general population raised many concerns regarding the nature and composition of this valuable tool in controlling the pandemic. A sector of the people refused to vaccinate, worried about long-term side effects, raising questions about alterations of their genomics, among others. On other register, many patients seeking injection therapies for cosmetic purposes or degenerative joint diseases rarely question the composition of orthobiologics and consent to their treatment with vague or unspecific responses from their physicians with the explanation of its autologous nature.
It has been well documented that most published literature lacks the minimum reporting guidelines for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy. In a systematic review by DeClercq et al. [1], including 19 studies on PRP for rotator cuff repair, only 58.5% of the items on the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines were fulfilled. Of the 47 items comprising this reporting guideline, 22 were reported in half of the studies. And details regarding whole blood and PRP processing and characteristics were reported inconsistently. This is also true for studies on professional soccer players, in which only 26.13% of the studies reported relevant information [2]. The lack of this data compromises the principle of reproducibility, one of the foundations of the scientific method, and explains the contrasting outcomes of PRP implementation in different musculoskeletal pathologies.
PRP products and commercial devices have shown high variability in the composition of the concentrate to inject. Each device shows different blood volumes collected for centrifugation, spin protocols, platelet and leukocyte concentration, and PRP volume. Yet, the most relevant factor in the treatment, the final platelet dose, is seldomly reported.
Most commercial products indicate their effectiveness by stating that it achieves superior platelet concentrations followed by a number and an X, the so-called increase factor (e.g., 2.5X, referring that it yields 2.5 times baseline platelet concentration). Concentration itself does not correspond to dosage; it creates an illusion. A valid concentration calculation should be accompanied by the baseline platelet concentration (which varies among patients), the collected blood volume, and the final PRP product volume. The dose should be standardized, referring to the absolute number of platelets and any other PRP component delivered per injection, like in any other therapeutic drug. Magalon et al. [3] reviewed 50 PRP commercial devices, revealing a wide range of theoretical platelet dosages for delivery from 300 million to 12.8 billion platelets. Moreover, only 14 of those devices have been appropriately described in the literature to characterize their PRP product.
The quest for the ideal platelet dose in PRP injections, and other relevant components, such as leukocytes, will help to elucidate its efficacy in future clinical trials. Recent studies suggest a minimum 10 billion platelet dose for sustained therapeutic effect in treating knee osteoarthritis with significant improvement of IKDC and WOMAC scores at one year follow-up [4]. However, only five devices reviewed in Magalon et al. [3] study can yield such a dose.
Despite the inconsistencies in the PRP formulations and commercial devices, a survey from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine revealed that 66.1% of the respondent members used orthobiologics in their practice, and 71.6% were expecting an increase in their implementation [5].
Scientific journals play a crucial role in high-quality standard practices on orthobiologics, which show promising results but remain inconsistent within the studies. In fact, an analysis of the top 50 cited articles (mean number of citations 241 ± 94, range 151–625) on orthobiologics revealed a high level of evidence and fair methodological quality [6]. Nevertheless, no significant improvement in the quality of the studies was noted in recent publications. As a scientific community driven by excellence, we shall aim to improve the methodological quality of our clinical trials and fill the void needed to adopt the conscious use of orthobiologics among our colleagues. In this regard, many initiatives have been conducted that deserve to be highlighted again, such as the MIBO [7] or the DEPA classification (dose of injected platelets, efficiency of production, purity of the PRP, activation of the PRP) [8]. Implementing mandatory reporting guidelines to review submitted manuscripts would help increase the quality of publications while assuring its evidence-based implementation.
Our Journal publishes regularly new research in orthobiologics [9,10,11]. The quality of information is one of our paramount criteria for selection. As scientists, we have to report truth and evidence. However, as citizens, we still have this question “Are we sure about what we have in the box?”.
Knowing precisely what we inject into our patient is mandatory.
References
DeClercq MG, Fiorentino AM, Lengel HA, Ruzbarsky JJ, Robinson SK, Oberlohr VT, Whitney KE, Millett PJ, Huard J (2021) Systematic review of platelet-rich plasma for rotator cuff repair: are we adhering to the minimum information for studies evaluating biologics in orthopaedics? Orthop J Sports Med 9(12):23259671211041972. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211041971
Marín Fermín T, Papakostas E, Macchiarola L, Zampeli F, Kalifis G, De Girolamo L, Zikria BA, Khoury M, D'Hooghe P (2022) Injectable orthobiologics in professional football (Soccer) players: a systematic review. J Cartilage Joint Preserv 2(2):100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjp.2022.100050
Magalon J, Brandin T, Francois P, Degioanni C, De Maria L, Grimaud F, Veran J, Dignat-George F, Sabatier F (2021) Technical and biological review of authorized medical devices for platelets-rich plasma preparation in the field of regenerative medicine. Platelets 32(2):200–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537104.2020.1832653
Bansal H, Leon J, Pont JL, Wilson DA, Bansal A, Agarwal D, Preoteasa I (2021) Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in osteoarthritis (OA) knee: correct dose critical for long term clinical efficacy. Sci Rep 11(1):3971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83025-2.Erratum.In:SciRep.2021Sep14;11(1):18612
Noback PC, Donnelley CA, Yeatts NC, Parisien RL, Fleischli JE, Ahmad CS, Moorman CT, Trofa DP, Saltzman BM (2021) Utilization of orthobiologics by sports medicine physicians: a survey-based study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Re 1 6 5(1):e20.00185. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00185
Bugarin A, Schroeder G, Shi BY, Jones KJ, Kremen TJ Jr (2022) Assessment of characteristics and methodological quality of the top 50 most cited articles on platelet-rich plasma in musculoskeletal medicine. Orthop J Sports Med 10(5):23259671221093070. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671221093074
Murray IR, Geeslin AG, Goudie EB, Petrigliano FA, LaPrade RF (2017) Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO): platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(10):809–819. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00793
Magalon J, Chateau AL, Bertrand B, Louis ML, Silvestre A, Giraudo L, Veran J, Sabatier F (2016) DEPA classification: a proposal for standardising PRP use and a retrospective application of available devices. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2(1):e000060. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000060
Wang M, Gao W (2022) Fixation of platelet-rich plasma and fibrin gels on knee cartilage defects after microfracture with arthroscopy. Int Orthop 46(8):1761–1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05377-2
Lutz C, Cheng J, Prysak M, Zukofsky T, Rothman R, Lutz G (2022) Clinical outcomes following intradiscal injections of higher-concentration platelet-rich plasma in patients with chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Int Orthop 46(6):1381–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05389-y
Kandil MI, Ahmed ASAA, Eldesouky RS, Eltregy S (2022) Allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors local injection in treatment of tennis elbow: a prospective randomized controlled study. Int Orthop 46(3):581–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05300-9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
No ethics approval was required for the presented study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marín Fermín, T., Scarlat, M.M. & Laupheimer, M.W. Would you have an injection without knowing its formula? New challenges in platelet-rich plasma therapy. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 46, 2179–2180 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05566-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05566-z