Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Platelet Rich Plasma or Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis.

Background: In the last decade, regenerative therapies have become one of the leading disease modifying options for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Still, there is a lack of trials with a direct comparison of different biological treatments. Our aim was to directly compare clinical outcomes of knee injections of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate (BMAC), Platelet-rich Plasma (PRP), or Hyaluronic acid (HA) in the OA treatment. Methods: Patients with knee pain and osteoarthritis KL grade II to IV were randomized to receive a BMAC, PRP, and HA injection in the knee. VAS, WOMAC, KOOS, and IKDC scores were used to establish baseline values at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. All side effects were reported. Results: A total of 175 patients with a knee osteoarthritis KL grade II-IV were randomized; 111 were treated with BMAC injection, 30 with HA injection, and 34 patients with PRP injection. There were no differences between these groups when considering KL grade, BMI, age, or gender. There were no serious side effects. The mean VAS scores after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days showed significant differences between groups with a drop of VAS in all groups but with a difference in the BMAC group in comparison to other groups (p < 0.001). There were high statistically significant differences between baseline scores and those after 12 months (p < 0.001) in WOMAC, KOOS, KOOS pain, and IKDC scores, and in addition, there were differences between these scores in the BMAC group in comparison with other groups, except for the PRP group in WOMAC and the partial IKDC score. There were no differences between the HA and PRP groups, although PRP showed a higher level of clinical improvement. Conclusions: Bone marrow aspirate concentrate, Leukocyte rich Platelet Rich Plasma, and Hyaluronic acid injections are safe therapeutic options for knee OA and provide positive clinical outcomes after 12 months in comparison with findings preceding the intervention. BMAC could be better in terms of clinical improvements in the treatment of knee OA than PRP and HA up to 12 months. PRP provides better outcomes than HA during the observation period, but these results are not statistically significant. More randomized controlled trials and high quality comparative studies are needed for direct correlative conclusions.

Aragonite-Based Scaffold for the Treatment of Joint Surface Lesions in Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritic Knees: Results of a 2-Year Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is considered a contraindication to most cartilage repair techniques. Several regenerative approaches have been attempted with the aim of delaying or preventing joint replacement, with controversial results. Currently, there is a paucity of data on the use of single-step techniques, such as cell-free biomimetic scaffolds, for the treatment of joint surface lesions (JSLs) in OA knees. PURPOSE: To present the 2-year follow-up clinical and radiological outcomes after implantation of a novel, cell-free aragonite-based scaffold for the treatment of JSLs in patients with mild to moderate knee OA in a multicenter prospective study. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 86 patients, 60 male and 26 female, with a mean age of 37.4 ± 10.0 years, mild to moderate knee OA, and a mean defect size of 3.0 ± 1.7 cm2, were recruited at 8 medical centers according to the following criteria: radiographic mild to moderate knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3); up to 3 treatable chondral/osteochondral defects (International Cartilage Repair Society grades 3 and 4) on the femoral condyles or trochlea; a total defect size ≤7 cm2; and no concurrent knee instability, severe axial malalignment, or systemic arthropathy. All patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after implantation using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score. Additionally, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed to assess the amount of cartilage defect filling at the repaired site. RESULTS: Significant improvement on all KOOS subscales was recorded from baseline (Pain: 49.6 ± 13.1; Activities of Daily Living [ADL]: 56.1 ± 18.4; Sport: 22.8 ± 18.8; Quality of Life [QoL]: 23.5 ± 16.5; Symptoms: 55.4 ± 19.9) to the 24 months' follow-up (Pain: 79.5 ± 21.1 [P < .001]; ADL: 84.1 ± 21.4 [P < .001]; Sport: 60.8 ± 31.9 [P < .001]; QoL: 54.9 ± 30.4 [P < .001]; Symptoms: 77.7 ± 21.2 [P < .001]). The IKDC subjective score showed a similar trend and improved from 37.8 ± 14.7 at baseline to 65.8 ± 23.5 at 24 months (P < .001). MRI showed a significant increase in defect filling over time: up to 78.7% ± 25.3% of surface coverage after 24 months. Treatment failure requiring revision surgery occurred in 8 patients (9.3%). CONCLUSION: The use of an aragonite-based osteochondral scaffold in patients with JSLs and mild to moderate knee OA provided significant clinical improvement at the 24-month follow-up, as reported by the patients. These findings were associated with good cartilage defect filling, as observed on MRI.

Do knee injection portals affect clinical results of bone marrow aspirate concentrate injection in the treatment of osteoarthritis? A prospective randomized controlled study.

Aim: To explore the effect that the location of needle placement has on efficacy and tolerability of bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections during treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections were administered to 111 patients via superolateral, anteromedial or anterolateral portals. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale before and 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after intervention. Knee function was assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores before and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after intervention. Results: Significant differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were observed 12 months post intervention compared with baseline (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences in outcome or pain scores were observed among groups. Conclusion: All portals demonstrated similar clinical benefits up to 12 months after intervention. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03825133).

Single-row arthroscopic cuff repair with double-loaded anchors provides good shoulder function in long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of arthroscopic cuff reconstruction, which is currently preferred in our service, and to compare functional outcome after arthroscopic cuff reconstruction comparing different types and sizes of rotator cuff tears. We switched completely from open repair to the full-arthroscopic repair > ten years ago, and since then, we are developing a technique that can produce the best results. Therefore, we decided to verify results. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Single-row arthroscopic repair using double-loaded metal anchors and margin-convergence sutures with concomitant procedures were performed in all cases. All patients were assessed and classified before and after surgery using the Constant scoring system and the Oxford Shoulder Score. Tears were measured and classified as medium (1-3 cm), large(3-5 cm) and massive (>5 cm). RESULTS: The average age of participants was 59 ± 9 years (33-76). There were five medium, 43 large and 23 massive tears. The average functional Constant score at the last follow-up was 91.68 ± 10.62, and the Oxford score averaged 43.23 ± 5.84 without statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) among groups Best results were in the massive-tear group, with an overall Constant score of 98.60 ± 2.61 and an average Oxford score of 47.60 ± 0.55. Full recovery was obtained between six months and one year. We used our own modified rehabilitation protocol and found no postoperative stiffness in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Single-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using double-loaded metal anchors and margin-convergence sutures with concomitant procedures, when necessary, provides excellent results. Pain, range of motion, muscle strength and function were significantly improved after single-row repair among all morphological types of cuff lesions.