Mautner, Kenneth R

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and cell‐based treatments including adipose‐derived and bone marrow aspirate have been sought by the lay and medical community as treatment options. Objective To perform a scoping review of published literature on cell‐based injections allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of osteoarthritis to synthesize existing evidence and identify research gaps for future evaluation. Methods A comprehensive search of five databases was executed from inception through January 2, 2025. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were original research studies written in English on Food and Drug Administration‐allowed cell‐based treatments in adults with osteoarthritis of any joint. Results The database search yielded 4257 unique records. After screening, 84 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 9996 patients and a total of 10,508 procedures. The primary research study designs were cohort studies ( n = 62), focused on treatment of knee osteoarthritis ( n = 63), and described bone marrow aspirate ( n = 42) and adipose‐derived ( n = 42) treatments. Postprocedure monitoring ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years, with most studies ≤1 year ( n = 59). Patient‐reported outcomes were reported in 83 of 84 studies; few provided imaging outcomes including magnetic resonance imaging ( n = 9) or radiographs ( n = 2). Conclusion This review identified limited randomized controlled trials, limited studies outside the knee, limited description of cell‐based treatments, and treatment protocols, along with inconsistent patient‐reported outcomes limited to 1 year in most studies. We propose establishing reporting guidelines in research on cell‐based therapies.

Purpose To establish consensus statements on platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. Methods A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty‐five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. Conclusions (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure‐plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post‐trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Abstract: Many sports medicine physicians are currently considering introducing regenerative medicine into their practice. Regenerative medicine and the subclassification of orthobiologics are a complicated topic and have produced widely varying opinions. Although there is concern by government regulators, clinicians, scientists, patient advocacy organizations, and the media regarding the use of regenerative medicine products, there is also excitement about the potential benefits with growing evidence that certain regenerative medicine products are safe and potentially efficacious in treating musculoskeletal conditions. Sports medicine physicians would benefit from decision-making guidance about whether to introduce orthobiologics into their practice and how to do it responsibly. The purpose of this position statement is to provide sports medicine physicians with information regarding regenerative medicine terminology, a brief review of basic science and clinical studies within the subclassification of orthobiologics, regulatory considerations, and best practices for introducing regenerative medicine into clinical practice. This information will help sports medicine physicians make informed and responsible decisions about the role of regenerative medicine and orthobiologics in their practice.