High Volume PRP Therapy.

BACKGROUND The PRP method is widely used to support healing and regeneration in musculoskeletal and aesthetic medicine. The current literature, however, brings contradictory reports as to its effectiveness, which, at least in part, should be attributed to the diversity of methods for producing the concentrate, including the use of various volumes of whole blood, single vs double centrifugation vs filtration, use of thrombin vs calcium chloride to activate the process, and, finally, the use of an anticoagulant. The aim of the study was to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of high-volume PRP therapy with the Angel® system (Arthrex) in our patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 400 therapies were performed on 299 patients. The most frequently represented indications were knee osteoarthritis (OA), n = 164, including mild (n = 30), moderate (n = 38), and advanced (n = 96) stage; lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD), n = 54; rotator cuff injuries (RCI), n = 52; lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), n = 37; cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD), n = 17; and shoulder OA, n = 12. Therapies for LDDD and LSS patients were additionally divided with respect to the route of administration (periradicular vs epidural). The assessment tool was the modified Macnab scale. Follow-up examinations were performed at two and six months after PRP administration. Indicators of treatment success were defined as the percentage of satisfactory results and the percentage ratio of satisfactory results to non-satisfactory results after 2 and 6 months of follow-up (S/NS2 and S/NS6). For the advanced stage of knee OA, the results were compared in three age groups (under 66, 67-73 and over 74). RESULTS For the entire treatment group, the mean S/NS2 ratio was 1.56; in the group of the most frequently represented indications, the highest satisfaction ratio was obtained in LDDD (2.84), and the lowest in the group of RCI (0.96). The mean value of the S/ NS6 ratio was 2.24, being the highest in mild knee OA (4.79) and CDDD (4.67), and the lowest in shoulder OA (0.72). In the age group over 74 years, the frequency of non-satisfactory results shows an increase in patients with advanced knee OA. CONCLUSIONS 1. High-volume PRP therapy can be used as a local regenerative and anti-inflammatory treatment, demonstrating the highest efficacy in early knee OA and CDDD. 2. High PRP therapy demonstrates a high safety profile. 3. The final effects of the therapy develop over a period of several months of follow-up and depend on the severity of the degenerative process and the patient's age.