Current Status and Advancements in Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment modality has been around for the last four decades, but only truly gained popularity over the last 10 to 15 years in medicine, in a variety of fields ranging from regenerative medicine to infertility treatment. It has gained popularity, especially in treating musculoskeletal conditions where the bulk of research has been performed and published. There is level I evidence available supporting its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), epicondylitis, bursitis, compressive neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, muscular injuries and osteochondral lesions. Most published research with regards to PRP has been focused on knee OA (limited research in shoulder, elbow, and foot and ankle OA), lateral epicondylitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, whereas spinal and hand conditions have limited research available. Tendinopathies and partial tendon tears have conflicting evidence available, with level I evidence supporting PRP's use in rotator cuff tendinopathies and tears, with contradictory level I evidence discouraging its use in patella and Achilles tendinopathies and tears. The available evidence regarding the use of PRP continues to produce conflicting results, but despite this, there is an ongoing increase in the popularity and use of PRP in patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Patient and parent satisfaction with soft cast immobilization and a single visit for buckle fractures.

Introduction: Compression fractures of the distal radius (known as buckle or torus fractures) should be managed with non-rigid immobilization and a single visit as per the NICE guidelines. A recent national survey demonstrated ongoing reluctance to incorporate this treatment strategy in Ireland, with more than 70% of institutions still managing these fractures with the traditional method (rigid cast immobilization and fracture clinic follow up). In this study we assessed whether this could be attributed to parent or carer preference. Methods: All paediatric patients from January 2021 to August 2022 in a single centre with buckle fractures of the distal radius were included in this study. A 10-question survey was created to assess whether the care giver and patient was satisfied with the information supplied, method of stabilization, single point of contact, and self-removal of the soft cast. A maximum of 5 points could be given to each score with a maximum of 50 for the overall satisfaction of care. Results: A total of 82 surveys were completed via the post or telephonically. The two lowest average scores were 3.77 (SD ± 1.20) and 3.95 (SD ± 1.24), which indicated that patients would have no issues organising a follow up appointment and difficulty with cast removal respectively. Three other questions scored slightly better with 4.12 (SD ± 1.02), 4.17 (SD ± 1.04) and 4.22 (SD ± 1.05) which demonstrated some dissatisfaction with the cast condition at time of removal, difficulty with returning to school directly after removal and a desire to have another follow up appointment respectively. The highest average score was for adequacy of information provided at the time of treatment, 4.58 (SD ± 0.67). Furthermore, high scores were also given to the questions regarding confidence in the stability provided by the soft cast and the modality of treatment provided. Conclusion: This study highlighted that one of the limiting factors to implementing the non-rigid immobilization and single visit protocol for buckle fractures as recommended by NICE is likely due to parental wariness and frequent dissatisfaction. This was mostly attributed to soft cast immobilization as patients experienced similar complications as found with rigid immobilization. The authors would rather suggest splint or soft bandage immobilization as this would likely improve patient/parent satisfaction with single visit treatment. With regards to further research, a follow up study can be performed focussing on the physician's preferences with regards to buckle fracture treatment protocol. And to determine what factors from the physician's perspective contributes to the reluctance in implementing the NICE guidelines protocol.

Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma With Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injections in Patients With Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis.

Introduction Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injections have gained popularity and are suggested to be more effective and longer lasting than corticosteroid or visco-supplementation therapy. There are few studies comparing PRP with corticosteroid injections and none comparing PRP in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis with the patient acting as their own control. Methods We performed a double-blind randomized controlled trial including 29 patients (58 knees) with radiologically confirmed mild-to-moderate bilateral knee osteoarthritis. They were randomized to receive an intra-articular PRP injection into one knee and a methylprednisolone injection with a local anesthetic into the contralateral knee. The primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) before the treatment and at six weeks, three months, and six months. Secondary outcome was measured pain with the visual numerical pain rating scale (VNS). Results Corticosteroids and PRP were both effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function at all time points, with maximal improvements at six weeks and three months. PRP scored slightly better than steroid injections at six months; nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference between corticosteroids and PRP injections (F2,139=0.173, p=0.84). The secondary outcome also delivered the same result with improvement at all time points but no statistically significant difference (F2,139=0.168, p=0.85). Conclusions Both corticosteroids and PRP interventions are effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis up to six months with no statistically significant difference between the two.

A Retrospective Study: Is Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound (LIPUS) an Effective Alternate Treatment Option for Non-union?

Background There is ongoing controversy regarding the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy in patients with delayed union or non-union. Exogen (Bioventus, Durham, NC) is a well-known brand of LIPUS, and according to their data, 86% of non-union fractures will heal without the need for surgery. A few independent retrospective studies reported much lower healing rates. Method A retrospective observational study was performed assessing all the patients who underwent Exogen therapy in a single centre. All patients who were initiated on Exogen after three months with radiographic signs of the delayed union were included in the study. Routine follow-up appointments were organised until clinical and radiological healing could be confirmed. Daily 20-minute Exogen sessions were continued until the fracture was healed or up to a maximum of four months as recommended by the manufacturer. Results A total of 37 patients received Exogen therapy from 2012 to 2021, of which only 28 patients met our inclusion criteria and were subsequently analysed. The mean age of the patients was 52.0 (SD ± 20.2) with a male to female ratio of 1.7:1. The average time to healing was 115 (±51.2) days with a success rate of 82.14%. The average interfragmentary gap was 7.5 mm (±5.8) for the fractures that healed whereas the failed treatment was 16.1 mm (±13.8). There was no obvious association between outcomes after Exogen therapy and the patient's age, sex, time to initiate Exogen, diabetes, and smoking status. Conclusion This study demonstrated a high success rate of LIPUS therapy for patients with delayed union and non-union. LIPUS represents a safe, non-invasive alternative to revision surgery. An independent risk factor for a potentially poor outcome is an increased interfragmentary gap.

Is aspirin still relevant as a single pharmacological agent for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis post hip and knee arthroplasty surgery: A retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Aspirin is widely used for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is well-established that the bleeding and wound complication risk for aspirin is low or equivalent to the other anticoagulant agents, but there is still ongoing controversy regarding the efficacy of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis. The current HSE (2012) guideline suggests 72 h of enoxaparin and 4 weeks of Aspirin therapy. But is this practice still relevant with more recent guidelines, NICE (2021) and SIGN (2014) suggesting that Aspirin is not recommended as a single pharmacological agent for VTE prophylaxis. METHOD: A Retrospective review was performed of a single centre, between January 2016 and May 2021 assessing for symptomatic VTE post-THA and TKA. All the patients received enoxaparin and aspirin as per the HSE guidelines. Using NIMIS we assessed which patients received a workup for potential symptomatic VTE and who had a confirmed VTE within 3 months post-surgery. The secondary outcome was mortality within 3 months post-surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1178 patients (721 undergoing THR and 457 undergoing TKR) were included in the study. The number of patients who received a workup for potential symptomatic VTE was 124 of 1178 (10.53%). VTE occurred in 13 of 721 patients (1.80%) of the THR patients and 1 of 457 (0.22%) of the TKR patients, and a total of 14 of 1178 patients (1.19%). Of these 7 (0.59%) patients developed a DVT and 7 (0.59%) a PE. No patients suffered a fatal pulmonary embolism within 90 days of index surgery nor any other cause of mortality. CONCLUSION: Aspirin is not only still relevant but can be considered as one of the most optimal pharmacological agents in preventing VTE after THA and TKA.

Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy in Patients With Post-traumatic Delayed Union and Non-union.

Background Fracture non-union can lead to significant patient morbidity with poor quality of life. Due to the cost, complexity, and potential risks of revision surgery, there has been an increased popularity in the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy (LIPUS), which accelerates and promotes bone consolidation. There is an ongoing debate regarding the use and efficacy of LIPUS in delayed union and non-union. This study aims to assess the success rate of LIPUS therapy in patients treated for delayed and non-union fractures, explicitly focusing on the impact of patient co-morbidities and fracture characteristics. Method A retrospective observational study was performed of all consecutive patients who received LIPUS therapy in a single institution from January 2016 to September 2022. Of 127 identified patients, only 99 patients met our inclusion criteria. Data collection entailed reviewing the clinical notes to assess patients' sex, age, co-morbidities, initial treatment method, time to initiate LIPUS, whether a CT was performed to diagnose non-union, time to union and whether revision surgery was needed. Two independent senior orthopedic doctors reviewed the patients' radiographs, measured the interfragmentary bone gap of all fractures, and assessed whether the radiographic union was achieved. Results The mean age of the included patients was 52.5 (SD±16.9) years with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.6. At initial presentation, 65 (out of 99) patients were treated surgically, whereas the rest were managed conservatively. 80.8% of patients developed atrophic non-union. All 99 included patients were fitted with LIPUS once delayed/ non-union was diagnosed; the average time to fitting was 5.1 (SD±3.9) months. Of these, 61.6% of patients were successfully treated with LIPUS with a clinical and radiological union at an average of 4.3 (SD±1.9) months. The rest of the patients needed further surgical intervention due to ongoing non-union. The interfragmentary bone gap was the only statistically significant factor influencing the success of LIPUS therapy (p=0.003). In contrast, no statistically significant association was identified between the outcome of LIPUS therapy and the patient's age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status. Conclusion This study demonstrated a 61.6% progression to union rate of patients treated with LIPUS therapy for delayed union and non-union. The interfragmentary bone gap was identified as the only statistically significant factor influencing the success of LIPUS therapy. In the current climate post-lockdown and with ongoing Covid 19 outbreaks impacting elective waiting lists negatively, there is increased value and demand for non-surgical treatment options. LIPUS therapy represents an important complementary non-surgical and low-risk treatment pathway for delayed union and non-union.