US definitions, current use, and FDA stance on use of platelet-rich plasma in sports medicine.

With increased utilization of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), it is important for clinicians to understand the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory role and stance on PRP. Blood products such as PRP fall under the prevue of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). CBER is responsible for regulating human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. The regulatory process for these products is described in the FDA's 21 CFR 1271 of the Code of Regulations. Under these regulations, certain products including blood products such as PRP are exempt and therefore do not follow the FDA's traditional regulatory pathway that includes animal studies and clinical trials. The 510(k) application is the pathway used to bring PRP preparation systems to the market. The 510(k) application allows devices that are "substantially equivalent" to a currently marketed device to come to the market. There are numerous PRP preparation systems on the market today with FDA clearance; however, nearly all of these systems have 510(k) clearance for producing platelet-rich preparations intended to be used to mix with bone graft materials to enhance bone graft handling properties in orthopedic practices. The use of PRP outside this setting, for example, an office injection, would be considered "off label." Clinicians are free to use a product off-label as long as certain responsibilities are met. Per CBER, when the intent is the practice of medicine, clinicians "have the responsibility to be well informed about the product, to base its use on firm scientific rationale and on sound medical evidence, and to maintain records of the product's use and effects." Finally, despite PRP being exempted, the language in 21 CFR 1271 has caused some recent concern over activated PRP; however to date, the FDA has not attempted to regulate activated PRP. Clinicians using activated PRP should be mindful of these concerns and continued to stay informed.

Stability of double-row rotator cuff repair is not adversely affected by scaffold interposition between tendon and bone.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff reconstructions may be improved by adding growth factors, cells, or other biologic factors into the repair zone. This usually requires a biological carrier (scaffold) to be integrated into the construct and placed in the area of tendon-to-bone healing. This needs to be done without affecting the constructs mechanics. Hypothesis/ PURPOSE: The hypothesis was that scaffold placement, as an interposition, has no adverse effects on biomechanical properties of double-row rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of scaffold interposition on the initial strength of rotator cuff repairs. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-five fresh-frozen shoulders (mean age: 65.5 ± 8.9 years) were randomly assigned to 5 groups. Groups were chosen to represent a broad spectrum of commonly used scaffold types: (1) double-row repair without augmentation, (2) double-row repair with interposition of a fibrin clot (Viscogel), (3) double-row repair with interposition of a collagen scaffold (Mucograft) between tendon and bone, (4) double-row repair with interposition of human dermis patch (ArthroFlex) between tendon and bone, and (5) double-row repair with human dermis patch (ArthroFlex) placed on top of the repair. Cyclic loading to measure displacement was performed to 3000 cycles at 1 Hz with an applied 10- to 100-N load. The ultimate load to failure was determined at a rate of 31 mm/min. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean displacement under cyclic loading, slope, or energy absorbed to failure between all groups (P = .128, P = .981, P = .105). Ultimate load to failure of repairs that used the collagen patch as an interposition (573.3 ± 75.6 N) and a dermis patch on top of the reconstruction (575.8 ± 22.6 N) was higher compared with the repair without a scaffold (348.9 ± 98.8 N; P = .018 and P = .025). No significant differences were found for repairs with the fibrin clot as an interposition (426.9 ± 103.6 N) and the decellularized dermis patch as an interposition (469.9 ± 148.6 N; P = .73 and P = .35). CONCLUSION: Scaffold augmentation did not adversely affect the zero time strength of the tested standard double-row rotator cuff repairs. An increased ultimate load to failure was observed for 2 of the augmentation methods (collagen patch as an interposition and decellularized dermis patch on top of the reconstruction) compared with the nonaugmented repairs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Scaffolds intended for application of growth factors or cellular components in a repair situation did not adversely jeopardize the stability of the operative construct.