Joost C. Peerbooms

Positive Effect of an Autologous Platelet Concentrate in Lateral Epicondylitis in a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial: Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection With a 1-Year Follow-up

Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown to be a general stimulation for repair. Purpose To determine the effectiveness of PRP compared with corticosteroid injections in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis. Study Design Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Patients The trial was conducted in 2 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. One hundred patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned in the PRP group (n = 51) or the corticosteroid group (n = 49). A central computer system carried out randomization and allocation to the trial group. Patients were randomized to receive either a corticosteroid injection or an autologous platelet concentrate injection through a peppering technique. The primary analysis included visual analog scores and DASH Outcome Measure scores (DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). Results Successful treatment was defined as more than a 25% reduction in visual analog score or DASH score without a reintervention after 1 year. The results showed that, according to the visual analog scores, 24 of the 49 patients (49%) in the corticosteroid group and 37 of the 51 patients (73%) in the PRP group were successful, which was significantly different (P < .001). Furthermore, according to the DASH scores, 25 of the 49 patients (51%) in the corticosteroid group and 37 of the 51 patients (73%) in the PRP group were successful, which was also significantly different (P = .005). The corticosteroid group was better initially and then declined, whereas the PRP group progressively improved. Conclusion Treatment of patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis with PRP reduces pain and significantly increases function, exceeding the effect of corticosteroid injection. Future decisions for application of the PRP for lateral epicondylitis should be confirmed by further follow-up from this trial and should take into account possible costs and harms as well as benefits.

Ongoing Positive Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial With 2-year Follow-up

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be a general stimulation for repair and 1-year results showed promising success percentages. Purpose: This trial was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of PRP compared with corticosteroid injections in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis with a 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The trial was conducted in 2 Dutch teaching hospitals. One hundred patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned to a leukocyte-enriched PRP group (n = 51) or the corticosteroid group (n = 49). Randomization and allocation to the trial group were carried out by a central computer system. Patients received either a corticosteroid injection or an autologous platelet concentrate injection through a peppering needling technique. The primary analysis included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome scores. Results: The PRP group was more often successfully treated than the corticosteroid group (P < .0001). Success was defined as a reduction of 25% on VAS or DASH scores without a reintervention after 2 years. When baseline VAS and DASH scores were compared with the scores at 2-year follow-up, both groups significantly improved across time (intention-to-treat principle). However, the DASH scores of the corticosteroid group returned to baseline levels, while those of the PRP group significantly improved (as-treated principle). There were no complications related to the use of PRP. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis with PRP reduces pain and increases function significantly, exceeding the effect of corticosteroid injection even after a follow-up of 2 years. Future decisions for application of PRP for lateral epicondylitis should be confirmed by further follow-up from this trial and should take into account possible costs and harms as well as benefits.

Use of platelet rich plasma to treat plantar fasciitis: design of a multi centre randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundIf conservative treatment for chronic plantar fasciitis fails, often a corticosteroid injection is given. Corticosteroid injection gives temporarily pain reduction, but no healing. Blood platelets initiate the natural healing rate. GPS® gives an eightfold concentrate platelets of patients own blood. Injection of these platelets in the attachment of the fascia to the os calcis might induce a healing rate.Methods and designA randomized controlled multi centre trial will be performed. The study population consists of 120 patients of 18 years and older. Patients with chronic plantar fasciitis will be allocated randomly to have a steroid injection or an autologous platelet concentrate injections. Data will be collected before the procedure, 4,8,12,26 weeks and 1 year after the procedure.The main outcome measures of this study are pain and function measured with questionnaires.ConclusionRecent literature show positive effects for the treatment of tendinosis with autologous platelet injections. The forthcoming trial will compare treatment for chronic plantar fasciitis with a steroid injection versus an autologous platelet injection. Our results will be published as soon as they become available.Trial RegistrationTrial registration number: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00758641.

No positive effect of autologous platelet gel after total knee arthroplasty: A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 102 patients with a 3-month follow-up

Background and purpose Activated platelets release a cocktail of growth factors, some of which are thought to stimulate repair. We investigated whether the use of autologous platelet gel (PG) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) would improve wound healing and knee function, and reduce blood loss and the use of analgesics. Patients and methods 102 patients undergoing TKA were randomly assigned to a PG group (n = 50) or to a control (C) group (n = 52). The primary analysis was based on 73 participants (PG: 32; C: 41) with comparison of postoperative wound scores, VAS, WOMAC, knee function, use of analgesics, and the pre- and postoperative hemoglobin values after a follow-up of 3 months. 29 participants were excluded due to insufficient data. Results The characteristics of the protocol-compliant patients were similar to those of the patients who were excluded. Analysis was per protocol and focused on the remaining 73 patients. At baseline and after 3 months of follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding age, height, weight, sex, side of operation, platelet count, hemoglobin values, severity of complaints (WOMAC), and level of pain. Interpretation In our patients undergoing TKA, application of PG to the wound site did not promote wound healing. Also, we found that PG had no effect on pain, knee function, or hemoglobin values.

Concentrations of Blood Components in Commercial Platelet-Rich Plasma Separation Systems: A Review of the Literature:

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has proven to be a very safe therapeutic option in the treatment of tendon, muscle, bone, and cartilage injuries. Currently, several commercial separation systems are available for the preparation of PRP. The concentrations of blood components in PRP among these separation systems vary substantially. Purpose: To systematically review and evaluate the differences between the concentrations of blood components in PRP produced by various PRP separation systems. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE were searched for studies that compared the concentrations of blood components and growth factors in PRP between various separation systems and studies that reported on the concentrations of blood components and growth factors of single separation systems. The primary outcomes were platelet count, leukocyte count, and concentration of growth factors (eg, platelet-derived growth factor–AB [PDGF-AB], transforming growth factor–β1 [TGF-β1], and vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]). Furthermore, the preparation protocols and prices of the systems were compared. Results: There were 1079 studies found, of which 19 studies were selected for inclusion in this review. The concentrations of platelets and leukocytes in PRP differed largely between, and to a lesser extent within, the studied PRP separation systems. Additionally, large differences both between and within the studied PRP separation systems were found for all the growth factors. Furthermore, preparation protocols and prices varied widely between systems. Conclusion: There is a large heterogeneity between PRP separation systems regarding concentrations of platelets, leukocytes, and growth factors in PRP. The choice for the most appropriate type of PRP should be based on the specific clinical field of application. As the ideal concentrations of blood components and growth factors for the specific fields of application are yet to be determined for most of the fields, future research should focus on which type of PRP is most suitable for the specific field.

Platelet‐rich plasma in upper limb conditions

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous platelet concentrate. It has been used since 1990 in dental and facial reconstructive surgery and its application in other areas is increasing rapidly as a result of the presumably positive effects on bone, muscle and tendon regeneration as well as wound healing. Recently, we have learned more about growth factors that play an important role in the healing process. In vitro studies show that growth factors released by platelets have a positive effect on the healing of soft tissue. Despite the presence of minimal clinical evidence, the application of PRP for upper limb conditions has increased. The medical industry promotes the application of PRP significantly. Several randomized studies are currently implemented, although we have to be careful with the use of PRP for upper limb conditions until ‘higher level’ research is published.