Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy in a two case series: no significant difference in effect between leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor PRP
Authors Hanisch K, Wedderkopp N
Received 14 September 2018
Accepted for publication 24 January 2019
Published 8 April 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 55—60
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Clark Hung
Klaus Hanisch,1 Niels Wedderkopp1,2
1Orthopedic Department, Hospital of Southwestern Jutland, Esbjerg, Denmark; 2Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Background: There is a theoretical basis for the treatment of chronic tendinopathies by platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and it can, therefore, be considered a possible treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathies (CATs), even though the clinical evidence for the use is not clear and, in addition, there is a lack of treatment algorithms and it is unclear which type of PRP is most effective. The objective of this study was through the comparison of two case series to assess: 1) the effect of PRP on CAT and 2) if there is any difference in effect between leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) in the treatment of CAT.
Patients and methods: Two separate series of achilles tenodinopathies treated with either LR-PRP or LP-PRP were evaluated with a natural experiment/quasi-experimental study design, with a short-term (2 months) and long-term (8–42 months) follow-up to assess the effect and stability of the treatment. In total, 84 patients with failed basic treatment for CAT for at least 6 months were treated with either Biomet’s GPS III recovery kit with LR-PRP (36 patients) or with Arthrex ACP LP-PRP (48 patients).
Results: The overall probability of reaching a minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of at least 30% reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) was in activity (63%) and during rest (81%), and for Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment Scale (VISA-A), it was 61%. There was no statistical difference in change of VISA-A score or VAS between the patients treated with LP-PRP and LR-PRP.
Conclusion: PRP seems to be a possible treatment when all other treatment regimens have failed, with a reasonably high probability of reaching MCIC. The choice of either LR-PRP or LP-PRP seems to be up to personal preference as there were no significant differences between patients treated with LR-PRP and LP-PRP.
Keywords: platelet-rich plasma, leukocyte-rich PRP, leukocyte-poor PRP, Achilles tendinopathy
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]