UNASSIGNED: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment for knee osteoarthritis has grown exponentially over the past decade; however, its scientific evaluation is highly variable. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons addressed the need for the standardization of orthobiologics studies by publishing the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines in May 2017. In total, the MIBO guidelines are divided into 12 categories, encompassing 23 checklist items.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this study was to analyze how well randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis adhered to the MIBO guidelines. We hypothesized that most articles would report <80% of the MIBO criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.
UNASSIGNED: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used to perform a systematic review in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria included English-language RCTs that assessed PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis and reported beginning patient enrollment in June 2017 or later. The original 23 MIBO checklist items were separated and modified into a 44-point checklist. Adherence was determined by calculating the total percentage of checklist items that each article adequately and clearly reported from the 44-point checklist.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 25 RCTs (2356 patients) were included in this study. The weighted mean age was 57.7 ± 4.4 years, with 42.9% being male. On average, only 53.1% ± 10.4% (range, 31.8%-77.3%) of the 44-point MIBO checklist items were reported per article. No articles had adherence rates ≥80%, 5 (20.0%) had rates between 60% and 79.9%, and 20 (80.0%) had rates ≤59.9%. Categories fluctuated in adherence, with \"Intervention\" having the greatest adherence (100.0%) and \"Activation\" having the lowest (14.0%). Additionally, 4 (33.3%) categories had adherence rates ≥80%, 0 had rates from 60% to 79.9%, and 8 (66.7%) had rates ≤59.9%.
UNASSIGNED: The overall mean adherence to MIBO guidelines by RCTs on PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis was 53.1%. To increase the reproducibility, improve transparency, and assess the treatment efficacy of future PRP studies, reporting of MIBO guidelines should be improved.

In the past decades, personalized regenerative medicine has gained increased attention. Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) such as PRP, PRGF, and L-PRF, all serving as a source of a large variety of cells and growth factors that participate in hard and soft tissue healing and regeneration, could play a significant role in regenerative periodontal procedures. This narrative review evaluated the relative impact of APCs in alveolar ridge preservation, sinus floor augmentation, and the regeneration of bony craters around teeth, both as a single substitute or in combination with a xenograft. L-PRF has a significant beneficial effect on alveolar ridge preservation (bone quality). The data for PRGF are less convincing, and PRP is controversial. L-PRF can successfully be used as a single substitute during transcrestal (≥3.5 mm bone gain) as well as 1-stage lateral window sinus floor elevation (>5 mm bone gain). For PRGF and especially PRP the data are very scarce. In the treatment of bony craters around teeth, during open flap debridement, L-PRF as a single substitute showed significant adjunctive benefits (e.g., >PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >crater depth reduction). The data for PRP and PRGF were non-conclusive. Adding PRP or L-PRF to a xenograft during OFD resulted in additional improvements (>PPD reduction, >CAL gain, >bone fill), for PRGF no data were found. Autologous platelet concentrates demonstrated to enhance bone and soft tissue healing in periodontal regenerative procedures. The data for L-PRF were most convincing. L-PRF also has the advantage of a greater simplicity of production, and its 100% autologous character.

This 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement provides a concise summary of available literature and practical clinical guidelines for team physicians and players. We recognize that orthobiologic injections are a generally safe treatment modality with a significant potential to reduce pain and expedite early return to play in specific musculoskeletal injuries. The use of orthobiologics in sports medicine to safely reduce time loss and reinjury is of considerable interest, especially as it relates to the potential effect on a professional athlete. While these novel substances have potential to enhance healing and regeneration of injured tissues, there is a lack of robust data to support their regular use at this time. There are no absolutes when considering the implementation of orthobiologics, and unbiased clinical judgment with an emphasis on player safety should always prevail. Current best evidence supports the following: Key Points There is support for the use of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. There is support for consideration of using leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma for patellar tendinopathy. The efficacy of using mesenchymal stromal cell injections in the management of joint and soft tissue injuries remains unproven at this time. There are very few data to suggest that current cell therapy treatments lead to any true functional tissue regeneration. Meticulous and sterile preparation guidelines must be followed to minimize the risk for infection and adverse events if these treatments are pursued.Given the high variability in orthobiologic formulations, team physicians must stay up-to-date with the most recent peer-reviewed literature and orthobiologic preparation protocols for specific injuries.Evidence-based treatment algorithms are necessary to identify the optimal orthobiologic formulations for specific tissues and injuries in athletes.Changes in the regulatory environment and improved standardization are required given the exponential increase in utilization as novel techniques and substances are introduced into clinical practice.

暂无摘要。

The evidence supporting best practice guidelines in the field of cartilage repair of the ankle are based on both low quality and low levels of evidence. Therefore, an international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions based on the best available evidence on key topics within cartilage repair of the ankle. The purpose of this article is to report the consensus statements on \"Conservative Management and Biological Treatment Strategies\" developed at the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle.
Seventy-five international experts in cartilage repair of the ankle representing 25 countries and 1 territory were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Questions and statements were drafted within 11 working groups focusing on specific topics within cartilage repair of the ankle, after which a comprehensive literature review was performed and the available evidence for each statement was graded. Discussion and debate occurred in cases where statements were not agreed upon in unanimous fashion within the working groups. A final vote was then held, and the strength of consensus was characterized as follows: consensus, 51% to 74%; strong consensus, 75% to 99%; unanimous, 100%.
A total of 12 statements on Conservative Management and Biological Treatment Strategies reached consensus during the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. Ten statements reached strong consensus (greater than 75% agreement), and 2 achieved consensus.
This international consensus derived from leaders in the field will assist clinicians with conservative management and biological treatment strategies for osteochondral lesions of the talus.