Platelet rich plasma or PRP is one of the mainstays of "Regenerative Medicine".  PRP is readily obtained via the diagram shown here, with concentrated platelets from your own body being used to effect healing of tendons such as the elbow, knee, or achilles or plantar fascia, use as a long lasting cosmetic filler, help with scalp hair restoration, and to heal wounds.  The platelets contain concentrated factors, and cause three phases of healing:

​

• Inflammation – Can last up to three days, as growth factors are released.

• Proliferation – Can last up to three weeks, as an influx of fibroblasts go to the injury site where differentiation and neovascularization occur.

• Remodeling – Can last up to one year, as new collagen matures and strengthens.

​

PRP therapy uses your own blood, about 2 ounces, that is treated with an anticoagulant, then centrifuged to produce separation into three visibly different colors in the centrifuge tube.  A long needle is used to extract the platelets from this mixture, then the platelets are activated, then injected as PRP into the patient.  For many years, these therapies costs thousands of dollars, and some "Rejuvenation Clinics" or "Regenerative Medicine Clinics" still charge these outrageous amounts for a simple spin-down of your blood.  Algos prices are typically 1/3 or less of most of these clinics.  Why?  Because we charge for service by the hour instead of for the procedure.  You are billed at our cost for the equipment and supplies. 

​

USES OF PRP:

Tennis elbow    Knee osteoarthritis    Knee ligament tears   Shoulder rotator cuff tears

Achilles tendon tears   Plantar fasciitis  Hip osteoarthritis   Wound healing   Cosmetic

​

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF PRP:

ROTATOR CUFF AND EPICONDYLITIS (Tennis elbow)

2017 review: RESULTS:

Thirty-seven articles were included in this review, 21 (1031 participants) of which could be included in the quantitative analysis. The majority of studies published investigated rotator cuff injuries (38.1%) or lateral epicondylitis (38.1%). Seventeen studies (844 participants) reported short-term VAS data, and 14 studies (771 participants) reported long-term VAS data. Overall, long-term follow-up results showed significantly less pain in the PRP group compared with the control group (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.84; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.44; P < .01). Patients treated with PRP for rotator cuff injuries (WMD, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.09; P = .02) and lateral epicondylitis (WMD, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.29; P = .01) reported significantly less pain in the long term. Substantial heterogeneity was reported at baseline ( I2 = 72.0%; P < .01), short-term follow-up ( I2 = 72.5%; P < .01), long-term follow-up ( I2 = 76.1%; P < .01), and overall ( I2 = 75.8%; P < .01). The funnel plot appeared to be asymmetric, with some missingness at the lower right portion of the plot suggesting possible publication bias.

CONCLUSION:

This review shows that PRP may reduce pain associated with lateral epicondylitis and rotator cuff injuries

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29268037)

​

OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE KNEE

1. Ten systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. The Jadad decision making tool suggested that the reviews with highest AMSTAR score should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 4 systematic reviews with low risk of bias and 6 with high risk of bias. As a result, two systematic reviews conducted by Dai et al and Meheux et al with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias were selected as the best evidence.

CONCLUSIONS:

The present overview demonstrates that PRP is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose PRP with more confidence  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29210206)

​

2. RESULTS:

Fourteen RCTs comprising 1423 participants were included. The control included saline placebo, HA, ozone, and corticosteroids. The follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 12 months. Risk of bias assessment showed that 4 studies were considered as moderate risk of bias and 10 as high risk of bias. Compared with control, PRP injections significantly reduced WOMAC pain subscores at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up (p = 0.02, 0.004, <0.001, respectively); PRP significantly improved WOMAC physical function subscores at 3, 6, and 12 months (p = 0.002, 0.01, <0.001, respectively); PRP also significantly improved total WOMAC scores at 3, 6 and 12 months (all p < 0.001); nonetheless, PRP did not significantly increased the risk of post-injection adverse events (RR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.80 to 2.45], I 2  = 59%, p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS:

Intra-articular PRP injections probably are more efficacious in the treatment of knee OA in terms of pain relief and self-reported function improvement at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up, compared with other injections, including saline placebo, HA, ozone, and corticosteroids.  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28115016)

​

3. RESULTS:

We included 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1069 patients. Our analysis showed that at 6 months postinjection, PRPand hyaluronic acid (HA) had similar effects with respect to pain relief (WOMAC pain score) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score, WOMAC total score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lequesne score). At 12 months postinjection, however, PRPwas associated with significantly better pain relief (WOMAC pain score, mean difference -2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.26 to -1.39, P = .0001) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score, mean difference -12.53, 95% CI -14.58 to -10.47, P  < .00001; WOMAC total score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lequesne score, standardized mean difference 1.05, 95% CI 0.21-1.89, P = .01) than HA, and the effect sizes of WOMAC pain and function scores at 12 months exceeded the MCID (-0.79 for WOMAC pain and -2.85 for WOMAC function score). Compared with saline, PRP was more effective for pain relief (WOMAC pain score) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score) at 6 months and 12 months postinjection, and the effect sizes of WOMAC pain and function scores at 6 months and 12 months exceeded the MCID. We also found that PRP did not increase the risk of adverse events compared with HA and saline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current evidence indicates that, compared with HA and saline, intra-articular PRP injection may have more benefit in pain relief and functional improvement in patients with symptomatic knee OA at 1 year postinjection.

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28012636)

​

4. RESULTS:

Six articles (739 patients, 817 knees, 39% males, mean age of 59.9 years, with 38 weeks average follow-up) were analyzed. All studies met minimal clinical important difference criteria and showed significant improvements in statistical and clinical outcomes, including pain, physical function, and stiffness, with PRP. All but one study showed significant differences in clinical outcomes between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) or PRP and placebo in pain and function. Average pretreatment Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were 52.36 and 52.05 for the PRP and HA groups, respectively (P = .420). Mean post-treatment WOMAC scores for PRP were significantly better than for HA at 3 to 6 months (28.5 and 43.4, respectively; P = .0008) and at 6 to 12 months (22.8 and 38.1, respectively; P = .0062). None of the included studies used corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients with symptomatic knee OA, PRP injection results in significant clinical improvements up to 12 months postinjection. Clinical outcomes and WOMAC scores are significantly better after PRP versus HA at 3 to 12 months postinjection. There is limited evidence for comparing leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor PRP or PRP versus steroids in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26432430)

 

PLANTAR FASCIITIS

RESULTS:

Nine RCTs (n = 430) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant differences in the VAS were not observed between the 2 groups after 4 [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -1.10 to 2.23, P = .51, I = 89%] or 12 weeks of treatment (WMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.44, P = .30, I = 89%). However, PRP exhibited better efficacy than the steroid treatment after 24 weeks (WMD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.11, P = .03, I = 85%). Moreover, no significant differences in the FADI, AOFAS, and RMS were observed between the 2 therapies (P > .05).

CONCLUSION:

Limited evidence supports the conclusion that PRP is superior to steroid treatments for long-term pain relief; however, significant differences were not observed between short and intermediate effects. Because of the small sample size and the limited number of high-quality RCTs, additional high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to validate this result. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29095303)

​

KNEE AND HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS

RESULTS:

The final result yielded 29 articles. Twenty-six studies examined PRP administration for knee OA and 3 involved PRPadministration for hip OA. The results included 9 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (8 knee and 1 hip), 4 prospective comparative studies, 14 case series, and 2 retrospective comparative studies. Hyaluronic acid (HA) was used as a control in 11 studies (7 RCTs, 2 prospective comparative studies, and 2 retrospective cohort). Overall, all RCTs reported on improved symptoms compared to baseline scores. Only 2 RCTs-one for knee and one for hip-did not report significant superiority of PRP compared to the control group (HA). Nine out of 11 HA controlled studies showed significant better results in the PRP groups. A trend toward better results for PRP injections in patients with early knee OA and young age was observed; however, lack of uniformity was evident in terms of indications, inclusion criteria, and pathology definitions in the different studies.

CONCLUSION:

Current clinical evidence supports the benefit in PRP treatment for knee and hip OA, proven to temporarily relieve pain and improve function of the involved joint with superior results compared with several alternative treatments.  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28317389)

​

WOUND HEALING

1. MAIN RESULTS:

The search identified one new RCT, making a total of 10 included RCTs (442 participants, 42% women). The median number of participants per RCT was 29 (range 10 to 117). Four RCTs recruited people with a range of chronic wounds; three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers, and three RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range 8 to 40 weeks).It is unclear whether autologous PRP improves the healing of chronic wounds generally compared with standard treatment (with or without placebo) (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.50; I(2) = 27%, low quality evidence, 8 RCTs, 391 participants). Autologous PRP may increase the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with standard care (with or without placebo) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs, 189 participants). It is unclear if autologous PRPaffects the healing of venous leg ulcers (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I(2) = 0% ). It is unclear if there is a difference in the risk of adverse events in people treated with PRP or standard care (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.88; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence from 3 trials, 102 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

PRP may improve the healing of foot ulcers associated with diabetes, but this conclusion is based on low quality evidence from two small RCTs. It is unclear whether PRP influences the healing of other chronic wounds. The overall quality of evidence of autologous PRP for treating chronic wounds is low. There are very few RCTs evaluating PRP, they are underpowered to detect treatment effects, if they exist, and are generally at high or unclear risk of bias. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27223580)

​

2. Nonhealing chronic wounds and exposed tendons, bones and joints are very challenging to cure specially for diabetic patients. Plastic surgeons have a new weapon to enhance wound healing with the use of autologous growth factors. Recently, the process of fabrication of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been simplified. The goal of this literature review is to summarize the evidenced-based body of knowledge regarding the treatment of diabetic chronic wounds by PRP. A PubMed and Cochrane search (1978-2015) was performed and all studies assessing the clinical effect of PRP on the healing of diabetic chronic wounds were included. The screening retrieved 7,555 articles and 12 studies were included. On six randomized studies included, five found significant benefits for the use of PRP on diabetic chronic foot ulcers and the sixth randomized study did not publish a statistical analysis but found favorable outcomes. The two other controlled studies included found significant benefits regarding the healing rate and the four uncontrolled studies included showed high rates of healing with the adjunction of PRP. Regarding the method of use, PRP was applied on the wound as a gel twice a week (41.7% of studies) or once a week (33.3% of studies). In conclusion, 87.5% of controlled studies found a significant benefit for the adjunction of PRP to treat chronic diabetic wounds. As PRP may be beneficial, we suggest using PRP on diabetic ulcers which remain unhealed after standard treatment. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26019054)