Mandelbaum, Bert R.

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.

Purpose To describe the complications that occur following biologic therapeutic injections. Methods We queried physician members of the Biologic Association, a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to providing a unified voice for all matters related to musculoskeletal biologics and regenerative medicine. Patients included in this study must have (1) received a biologic injection, (2) sustained an adverse reaction, and (3) had a minimum of 1‐year follow‐up after the injection. Patient demographic information, medical comorbidities, diagnoses, and previous treatments were recorded. The type of injection, injection setting, injection manufacturers, and specific details about the complication and outcome were collected. Results In total, 14 patients were identified across 6 institutions in the United States (mean age 63 years, range: 36‐83 years). The most common injections in this series were intra‐articular knee injections (50%), followed intra‐articular shoulder injections (21.4%). The most common underlying diagnosis was osteoarthritis (78.5%). Types of injections included umbilical cord blood, platelet‐rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, placental tissue, and unspecified “stem cell” injections. Complications included infection (50%), suspected sterile inflammatory response (42.9%), and a combination of both (7.1%). The most common pathogen identified from infection cases was Escherichia coli (n = 4). All patients who had isolated infections underwent treatment with at least one subsequent surgical intervention (mean: 3.6, range: 1‐12) and intravenous antibiotic therapy. Conclusions This study demonstrates that serious complications can occur following treatment with biologic injections, including infections requiring multiple surgical procedures and inflammatory reactions. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

Background Knee injuries are prevalent in cutting, pivoting, and jumping sports. Studies have investigated the effects of exercise-based knee injury prevention programs, however no clinical practice guidelines (CPG) exist. Objective 1) Review the evidence for exercise-based knee injury prevention programs, 2) identify if there are exercise-based knee injury prevention programs that are effective for particular groups of athletes, 3) explore the evidence for dosage and delivery of exercise-based knee injury prevention programs, 4) provide information on how exercise-based knee injury prevention should be implemented. Design Systematic review for CPG development. Setting Multiple. Patients (or Participants) Healthy, active individuals, particularly athletes participating in cutting, pivoting, and jumping sports. Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) A systematic review of literature was performed via PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases for relevant articles addressing the effects of an exercise-based knee injury prevention program. The final search was performed in April, 2016 to identify all articles published prior to that point. Main Outcome Measurements The effects and outcomes of exercise-based knee injury prevention programs. Results Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria for this CPG. Exercise-based knee injury prevention programs have a low implementation cost and large relative risk reductions. Clinicians should implement an exercise-based knee injury prevention program for all athletes involved in cutting and pivoting type sports to reduce the number of significant knee injuries. The program should be implemented two to three times per week in the preseason and one to three times per week in the competitive season. It should consist of a combination of plyometric training, strength and power exercises, balance and dynamic stabilization training, core strengthening, technique training, and/or sports-specific drills. Conclusions This CPG will provide evidence based guidance for clinicians in choosing and implementing exercise-based knee injury prevention programs appropriate for the athlete(s) they work with.