BackgroundPlatelet Rich Plasma (PRP), a blood-derived product rich in growth factors, is a promising treatment for cartilage defects but there is still a lack of clinical evidence. The aim of this study is to show, through a randomized double blind prospective trial, the efficacy of this procedure, by comparing PRP to Hyaluronic Acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee chondropathy or osteoarthritis (OA).Methods109 patients (55 treated with HA and 54 with PRP) were treated and evaluated at 12 months of follow-up. The patients were enrolled according to the following inclusion criteria: age> 18 years, history of chronic (at least 4 months) pain or swelling of the knee and imaging findings of degenerative changes of the joint (Kellgren-Lawrence Score up to 3). A cycle of 3 weekly injections was administered blindly. All patients were prospectively evaluated before and at 2, 6, and 12 months after the treatment by: IKDC, EQ-VAS, TEGNER, and KOOS scores. Range of motion and knee circumference changes were measured over time. Adverse events and patient satisfaction were also recorded.ResultsOnly minor adverse events were detected in some patients, such as mild pain and effusion after the injections, in particular in the PRP group, where a significantly higher post-injective pain reaction was observed (p=0.039). At the follow-up evaluations, both groups presented a clinical improvement but the comparison between the two groups showed a not statistically significant difference in all scores evaluated. A trend favorable for the PRP group was only found in patients with low grade articular degeneration (Kellgren-Lawrence score up to 2).ConclusionsResults suggest that PRP injections offer a significant clinical improvement up to one year of follow-up. However, conversely to what was shown by the current literature, for middle-aged patients with moderate signs of OA, PRP results were not better than those obtained with HA injections, and thus it should not be considered as first line treatment. More promising results are shown for its use in low grade degeneration, but they still have to be confirmed.

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.

PurposeThe aim of this review was to analyze the available evidence on the clinical application of this biological approach for the injective treatment of cartilage lesions and joint degeneration, together with preclinical studies to support the rationale for the use of platelet concentrates, to shed some light and give indications on what to treat and what to expect from intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP).MethodsAll in vitro, in vivo preclinical and clinical studies on PRP injective treatment in the English language concerning the effect of PRP on cartilage, synovial tissue, menisci, and mesenchymal stem cells were considered. A systematic review on the PubMed database was performed using the following words: (platelet-rich plasma or PRP or platelet concentrate or platelet lysate or platelet supernatant) and (cartilage or chondrocytes or synoviocytes or menisci or mesenchymal stem cells).ResultsFifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria: 26 were in vitro, 9 were in vivo, 2 were both in vivo and in vitro, and 22 were clinical studies. The analysis showed an increasing number of published studies over time. Preclinical evidence supports the use of PRP injections that might promote a favourable environment for joint tissues healing. Only a few high-quality clinical trials have been published, which showed a clinical improvement limited over time and mainly documented in younger patients not affected by advanced knee degeneration.ConclusionsBesides the limits and sometimes controversial findings, the preclinical literature shows an overall support toward this PRP application. An intra-articular injection does not just target cartilage; instead, PRP might influence the entire joint environment, leading to a short-term clinical improvement. Many biological variables might influence the clinical outcome and have to be studied to optimize PRP injective treatment of cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis.Level of evidenceIV.

The c-myc and c-fos proto-oncogenes have several putative functions, including regulation of cell growth. In many neoplasms c-myc overexpression has been linked to poor prognosis. In order to study the role of c-myc and c-fos expression on the tumorigenesis, and the metastatic spread of osteosarcoma, frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue 38 primary osteosarcoma and 10 lung metastases were analyzed. The mRNA analysis was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and in situ hybridization. The protein expression was studied by Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry. C-myc and c-fos were found overexpressed in a high percentage of the relapsed tumors and of the metastases, and overexpression of both oncogenes in the same tumor was strongly correlated to the development of metastases (p < 0.05), as 6 of the 7 primary tumors overexpressing both the oncogenes gave metastases. In conclusion, both c-myc and c-fos are involved in the growth and spread of osteosarcoma and a synchronous overexpression of both oncogenes is highly significant for a metastatic potential of a primary tumor.

These prognostic markers that influence growth and spread of tumor cells might be useful to define tumor aggressiveness and risk of the metastasic event.