Abstract 

Orthobiologics represent a rapidly evolving field within orthopedic surgery, focusing on harnessing the body’s natural healing processes to enhance recovery and improve outcomes. These advanced biological treatments utilize substances derived from the patient’s own body or from natural sources to facilitate tissue repair and regeneration. This abstract explores the role of orthobiologics in modern orthopedic surgery, examining their mechanisms of action, clinical applications, benefits, and future directions.

Orthobiologics encompass a range of therapies including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and bone graft substitutes. PRP, derived from the patient’s blood, is rich in growth factors that can stimulate tissue repair and reduce inflammation. MSCs, which can be isolated from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or other sources, have the potential to differentiate into various cell types and support the regeneration of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues. ACI involves the cultivation of a patient’s own chondrocytes to repair damaged cartilage, while bone graft substitutes are used to promote bone formation and healing.

The application of orthobiologics in orthopedic surgery offers several potential benefits. First, these therapies can enhance the natural healing process, leading to quicker recovery times and improved functional outcomes. For example, PRP has been shown to reduce pain and accelerate healing in tendon injuries, while MSCs have demonstrated promise in regenerating cartilage in osteoarthritis and repairing bone defects. Additionally, orthobiologics can potentially reduce the need for more invasive surgical interventions and decrease the risk of complications associated with traditional treatments.

Despite these advantages, the use of orthobiologics is not without challenges. The variability in treatment protocols, such as the concentration of growth factors in PRP or the source and preparation of MSCs, can lead to inconsistent results. Furthermore, the cost and complexity of these therapies can limit their accessibility and widespread adoption. Rigorous clinical trials and standardization of techniques are essential to address these issues and establish clear guidelines for their use.

Looking forward, the future of orthobiologics in orthopedic surgery holds significant promise. Advances in biomaterials, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine are expected to enhance the efficacy and applicability of these therapies. For instance, the integration of orthobiologics with innovative delivery systems and scaffolding techniques could improve their effectiveness and expand their use in various orthopedic conditions. Additionally, ongoing research into the molecular mechanisms underlying tissue repair and regeneration may lead to novel orthobiologic agents and combinations that offer even greater therapeutic benefits.

In conclusion, orthobiologics represent a transformative approach in orthopedic surgery, offering the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes by leveraging the body’s own healing capabilities. While challenges remain, continued research and development in this field are likely to yield further advancements, making orthobiologic therapies an increasingly integral part of orthopedic practice.

Keywords

Orthobiologics, Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs), Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs), Orthopedic Surgery, Healing, Fractures, Soft Tissue Injuries

Introduction

Orthobiologics represents a cutting-edge approach in orthopedic surgery, leveraging biological materials to enhance the body’s natural healing processes. This field has evolved from the traditional use of biological substances to more sophisticated therapies aimed at improving recovery and outcomes in various orthopedic conditions. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the major orthobiologic therapies: Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs), Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI), and Bone Graft Substitutes. We will examine their mechanisms, clinical applications, benefits, limitations, and future prospects.

  1. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)

2.1 Mechanism of Action

PRP is derived from the patient’s own blood and contains a high concentration of platelets and growth factors. The preparation involves drawing blood from the patient, processing it in a centrifuge to concentrate the platelets, and then injecting this concentrate into the target area. The growth factors in PRP, such as Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Transforming Growth Factor-Beta (TGF-β), and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), play crucial roles in tissue repair by promoting cellular proliferation, collagen synthesis, and angiogenesis.

2.2 Clinical Applications

PRP has been used to treat a variety of orthopedic conditions, including:

Tendinopathies: PRP is effective in managing chronic tendinopathies, such as rotator cuff injuries and Achilles tendinitis. Clinical studies have shown significant pain reduction and functional improvement in patients treated with PRP compared to those receiving placebo or conventional treatments.

Osteoarthritis: In knee osteoarthritis, PRP injections have been associated with reduced pain and improved joint function. While some studies indicate that PRP can delay the need for more invasive treatments, such as joint replacement, the long-term benefits remain a topic of ongoing research.

Acute Injuries: PRP has shown potential in accelerating the healing of acute musculoskeletal injuries, such as ligament sprains and muscle strains. The therapy can reduce recovery time and promote faster return to activity.

2.3 Benefits and Limitations

The primary benefits of PRP include its ability to utilize the patient’s own biological materials, reducing the risk of adverse reactions. It also offers a minimally invasive alternative to more aggressive treatments. However, limitations include variability in PRP preparation and treatment protocols, which can affect clinical outcomes. Additionally, while PRP is generally well-tolerated, its efficacy can vary between individuals, and more research is needed to standardize treatment protocols.

  1. Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs)

3.1 Mechanism of Action

MSCs are multipotent cells capable of differentiating into various cell types, including bone, cartilage, and muscle. They are typically harvested from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or other sources, cultured to expand their numbers, and then reintroduced into the patient’s body. MSCs contribute to tissue repair through several mechanisms, including differentiation into target tissues, secretion of growth factors, and modulation of the immune response.

3.2 Clinical Applications

MSCs have shown promise in treating a range of orthopedic conditions:

Cartilage Repair: MSCs are used to treat cartilage defects and osteoarthritis. Studies indicate that MSC therapy can improve cartilage quality and joint function, with some patients experiencing significant pain relief and functional recovery.

Bone Healing: In cases of non-union or delayed union fractures, MSCs can enhance bone regeneration. Clinical trials have demonstrated that MSCs can promote faster healing and improve bone formation in complex fracture scenarios.

Soft Tissue Injuries: MSCs are also effective in managing severe soft tissue injuries, such as large tendon tears and muscle injuries. Their regenerative capabilities help restore function and reduce recovery times.

3.3 Benefits and Limitations

The main advantages of MSC therapy include their ability to regenerate various tissue types and their potential to treat complex injuries. However, challenges include the variability in MSC sources and preparation methods, which can impact efficacy. Additionally, the high cost and complexity of MSC treatments may limit their widespread adoption.

  1. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI)

4.1 Mechanism of Action

ACI involves harvesting chondrocytes (cartilage cells) from a non-weight-bearing area of the patient’s joint, culturing them to expand their numbers, and then implanting them into the damaged cartilage area. This approach aims to restore cartilage integrity and function by providing a source of healthy chondrocytes to repair damaged tissue.

4.2 Clinical Applications

ACI is primarily used for treating large cartilage defects in the knee. Clinical studies have shown that ACI can lead to significant improvements in cartilage repair and joint function. Patients undergoing ACI often report substantial reductions in pain and improved physical activity levels, with many experiencing long-term benefits.

4.3 Benefits and Limitations

ACI offers a personalized approach to cartilage repair using the patient’s own cells, which reduces the risk of immune rejection. However, the procedure is complex and requires two surgical procedures, which can be resource-intensive. Complications such as graft delamination and inadequate cartilage integration may occur. Ongoing research aims to refine ACI techniques and improve patient selection criteria.

  1. Bone Graft Substitutes

5.1 Mechanism of Action

Bone graft substitutes are materials used to support bone healing and regeneration. These include synthetic materials like hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate, as well as natural materials such as demineralized bone matrix. These substitutes provide structural support and serve as scaffolds for new bone growth.

5.2 Clinical Applications

Bone graft substitutes are used in various orthopedic scenarios:

Bone Defects: In cases of bone defects or large fractures, bone graft substitutes can facilitate bone regeneration and support the healing process. Studies have demonstrated their effectiveness in treating spinal fusion and tibial fractures, achieving outcomes comparable to traditional autografts.

Fracture Repair: For complex fractures, especially those with compromised healing environments, bone graft substitutes can enhance bone healing and reduce the need for autografts. These materials support new bone formation and integration with the host bone.

5.3 Benefits and Limitations

Bone graft substitutes offer several advantages, including reduced donor site morbidity and the ability to provide structural support in challenging cases. However, challenges such as graft resorption and infection need to be addressed. The choice of graft material and surgical technique plays a crucial role in optimizing outcomes.

  1. Future Directions

The field of orthobiologics is rapidly evolving, with ongoing research aimed at improving the efficacy and accessibility of these therapies. Future directions include:

Standardization of Protocols: Establishing standardized protocols for the preparation and application of PRP, MSCs, and other orthobiologic therapies will enhance their consistency and effectiveness.

Development of Novel Therapies: Research into new biological agents and advanced materials will expand the range of orthobiologic options available for orthopedic conditions.

Long-Term Outcomes: Long-term studies are needed to evaluate the sustained benefits and potential risks of orthobiologic therapies, particularly for chronic and complex cases.

Cost and Accessibility: Efforts to reduce the cost and improve the accessibility of orthobiologic treatments will facilitate their wider adoption and integration into clinical practice.

Materials and Methods

The exploration of orthobiologics in orthopedic surgery involves a diverse array of materials and methods, each designed to harness biological processes for enhanced healing. This section details the materials commonly used in orthobiologic therapies, as well as the methodologies employed in their application and evaluation.

  1. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP):

Materials: PRP is prepared from the patient’s own blood. The key materials include anticoagulants (e.g., citrate or heparin) to prevent clotting, a centrifuge for separating blood components, and sterile collection and preparation kits.

Methods: Blood is drawn from the patient and processed in a centrifuge to separate platelets from red and white blood cells. The resulting PRP is then injected into the target area, such as a tendon or joint. The concentration of platelets and growth factors in PRP is typically higher than in normal blood, which is believed to enhance tissue repair. The effectiveness of PRP is evaluated through clinical assessments of pain relief, function, and imaging studies to monitor tissue healing.

  1. Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs):

Materials: MSCs are isolated from sources such as bone marrow or adipose tissue. Key materials include a bone marrow aspiration kit or liposuction equipment, cell culture media, growth factors, and cell processing and storage containers.

Methods: MSCs are harvested through minimally invasive procedures like bone marrow aspiration or liposuction. The collected cells are then processed and cultured in specialized media to expand their numbers. After expansion, MSCs are either re-injected into the patient’s body or combined with scaffolds to support tissue regeneration. The clinical efficacy of MSCs is assessed through imaging, functional evaluations, and histological analysis of the regenerated tissue.

  1. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI):

Materials: ACI requires chondrocytes harvested from the patient’s own cartilage, culture media for cell expansion, and a biomaterial scaffold or matrix for implantation.

Methods: A small cartilage sample is taken from a non-weight-bearing area of the patient’s joint. Chondrocytes are isolated and cultured in a laboratory to proliferate. The expanded chondrocytes are then seeded onto a biomaterial scaffold or matrix and implanted into the cartilage defect. The success of ACI is monitored through imaging techniques, functional assessments, and patient-reported outcomes to evaluate cartilage repair and joint function.

  1. Bone Graft Substitutes:

Materials: Bone graft substitutes include synthetic materials (e.g., hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate) or natural materials (e.g., demineralized bone matrix). Key materials also include surgical tools for graft application and fixation devices.

Methods: Bone graft substitutes are used to fill bone defects or support bone healing. The material is selected based on the specific clinical scenario and the biological properties required. During surgery, the graft material is placed in the defect site, often in conjunction with fixation devices to stabilize the area. Post-surgical assessment includes radiographic imaging and clinical evaluation to ensure successful integration and bone healing.

Evaluation and Analysis:

The effectiveness of orthobiologic treatments is typically assessed through a combination of clinical outcomes, including pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life. Imaging studies, such as X-rays, MRI, or CT scans, are used to monitor tissue regeneration and repair. Additionally, patient-reported outcomes and functional assessments provide valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of these treatments.

In conclusion, the materials and methods used in orthobiologics are designed to leverage the body’s natural healing processes. By employing advanced techniques and rigorous evaluation, these therapies aim to enhance recovery and improve patient outcomes in orthopedic surgery.

Results

The application of orthobiologics in orthopedic surgery has shown promising results across various clinical studies and trials, demonstrating potential benefits in terms of healing, pain reduction, and functional recovery. This section provides an overview of the outcomes observed with different orthobiologic therapies, including Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs), Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI), and Bone Graft Substitutes.

1. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)

PRP therapy has been extensively studied for its effects on musculoskeletal injuries and degenerative conditions. The results of these studies indicate that PRP can provide significant benefits in managing tendinopathies, osteoarthritis, and acute injuries.

Tendinopathies: Clinical trials have shown that PRP injections can significantly reduce pain and improve function in patients with chronic tendinopathies, such as those affecting the rotator cuff, Achilles tendon, and patellar tendon. A meta-analysis of studies involving PRP for rotator cuff injuries indicated substantial pain relief and functional improvement compared to placebo or standard treatments. Similarly, patients with Achilles tendinopathy treated with PRP reported faster recovery and reduced symptoms of pain and disability.

Osteoarthritis: The effectiveness of PRP in treating knee osteoarthritis has also been documented. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that PRP injections can reduce pain and improve joint function over short to medium-term periods. Patients receiving PRP reported better pain management and improved physical function compared to those receiving saline or corticosteroid injections. However, the long-term benefits of PRP remain a subject of ongoing research, with some studies suggesting sustained improvements while others indicate diminishing effects over time.

Acute Injuries: PRP has shown promise in accelerating recovery from acute musculoskeletal injuries, such as ligament sprains and muscle strains. Clinical evidence suggests that PRP can shorten the recovery period and enhance functional outcomes by promoting faster tissue repair and reducing inflammation.

2. Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs)

MSCs, derived from sources such as bone marrow or adipose tissue, have been explored for their regenerative potential in treating cartilage defects, bone fractures, and other orthopedic conditions.

Cartilage Repair: Studies involving MSCs for cartilage repair, particularly in knee osteoarthritis and focal cartilage defects, have demonstrated encouraging results. Clinical trials have reported that MSCs can improve cartilage quality and joint function. For instance, patients undergoing MSC treatment for knee osteoarthritis showed significant improvements in pain, function, and cartilage thickness on imaging studies. Similarly, MSCs have been used effectively to repair focal cartilage lesions, leading to better joint function and reduced pain compared to traditional methods.

Bone Fractures: MSCs have been evaluated for their ability to enhance bone healing in cases of non-union or delayed union fractures. Research has indicated that MSC therapy can improve fracture healing rates and bone regeneration. In a study comparing MSC treatment to standard bone grafts, MSCs were associated with faster healing and higher rates of union, particularly in complex or challenging fracture scenarios.

Adverse Effects and Efficacy: While MSCs offer significant regenerative potential, the clinical outcomes can vary based on factors such as the source of MSCs, the method of delivery, and patient-specific variables. Studies have reported that MSC therapy is generally well-tolerated, with minimal adverse effects. However, standardization of MSC preparation and application protocols is essential to optimize clinical outcomes and ensure consistent efficacy.

3. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI)

ACI has been a well-established technique for repairing cartilage defects, particularly in the knee. The results of ACI treatments reflect its effectiveness in restoring cartilage and improving joint function.

Cartilage Repair: Clinical outcomes from ACI trials indicate that this method can lead to substantial improvements in cartilage repair and joint function. Patients undergoing ACI for large cartilage defects have reported significant reductions in pain and improvements in physical activity levels. Long-term follow-up studies have shown sustained benefits, with many patients experiencing durable cartilage repair and enhanced joint function over several years.

Functional Outcomes: ACI has been associated with high levels of patient satisfaction and functional recovery. Studies have demonstrated that ACI can restore joint function to near-normal levels in many cases, allowing patients to return to their pre-injury activity levels. Functional assessment scores, such as the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), have shown significant improvements following ACI.

Challenges and Limitations: Despite its advantages, ACI has limitations, including the need for two surgical procedures and the potential for complications such as graft delamination or inadequate cartilage integration. Additionally, the procedure can be costly and resource-intensive. Ongoing research aims to refine techniques and improve patient selection criteria to enhance outcomes and address these challenges.

4. Bone Graft Substitutes

Bone graft substitutes are widely used in orthopedic surgery to facilitate bone healing and repair. The results from studies on various bone graft substitutes highlight their effectiveness in different clinical scenarios.

Bone Defects and Fractures: Bone graft substitutes, such as synthetic hydroxyapatite or demineralized bone matrix, have been shown to support bone healing in cases of bone defects and fractures. Clinical trials have demonstrated that these materials can promote new bone formation and support the integration of the graft with the host bone. For instance, synthetic bone grafts used in spinal fusion and tibial fractures have yielded favorable outcomes, with high rates of union and functional recovery.

Comparative Effectiveness: Comparative studies between bone graft substitutes and traditional autografts have revealed that substitutes can offer similar or superior outcomes in certain cases. For example, synthetic grafts have been shown to reduce donor site morbidity and offer comparable bone healing rates to autografts in spinal fusion procedures.

Safety and Complications: Bone graft substitutes generally have a favorable safety profile, with complications being relatively rare. However, issues such as graft resorption or infection can occur. The choice of graft material and surgical technique plays a crucial role in minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes.

Discussion

Orthobiologics have revolutionized orthopedic surgery by providing advanced therapies that enhance the body’s natural healing processes. The integration of PRP, MSCs, and BMPs into clinical practice offers several benefits, including accelerated healing, reduced recovery times, and improved functional outcomes. However, there are challenges and considerations that need to be addressed:

  1. Clinical Application

Variability in Treatment Protocols: One of the challenges with orthobiologics is the variability in preparation techniques, dosing, and administration routes. Different protocols can impact the effectiveness of these therapies. Standardizing treatment protocols and developing clear guidelines are essential for optimizing outcomes and ensuring consistency in clinical practice.

Personalized Approaches: Personalized treatment approaches are crucial for maximizing the benefits of orthobiologics. Individual patient characteristics, such as age, comorbidities, and the specific nature of the injury, can influence treatment outcomes. Tailoring orthobiologic therapies to individual patient needs can help achieve the best possible results.

 

  1. Future Research

Long-Term Outcomes: While current research supports the efficacy of orthobiologics, long-term studies are needed to assess the durability and sustainability of treatment effects. Future research should focus on evaluating the long-term outcomes of orthobiologic therapies and their impact on overall patient health and quality of life.

Cost-Effectiveness: The cost of orthobiologic therapies can be significant, and assessing their cost-effectiveness is important for widespread adoption. Research should examine the economic impact of these therapies compared to traditional treatments and explore strategies for making them more accessible to patients.

Advancements in Biomaterials and Delivery Systems: Future research should also explore advancements in biomaterials and delivery systems for orthobiologics. Innovations in these areas may further enhance the effectiveness and applicability of these therapies.

  1. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

Regulatory Approvals: The use of orthobiologics must adhere to regulatory guidelines and obtain necessary approvals. Ensuring the safety and efficacy of these therapies requires rigorous regulatory oversight and adherence to established protocols.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations related to the sourcing and handling of biological materials are crucial. Ensuring that orthobiologic therapies are developed and used in an ethical manner is essential for maintaining public trust and confidence in these treatments.

Conclusion

Orthobiologics have emerged as a transformative approach in orthopedic surgery, harnessing the body’s natural healing capabilities to enhance recovery and improve patient outcomes. The application of therapies such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs), Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI), and Bone Graft Substitutes represents a significant advancement in the management of musculoskeletal injuries and degenerative conditions. Each of these therapies offers unique benefits and potential drawbacks, reflecting the complexity and promise of orthobiologic treatments.

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) has demonstrated substantial efficacy in treating tendinopathies, osteoarthritis, and acute musculoskeletal injuries. Clinical evidence supports its ability to accelerate healing, reduce pain, and improve function. PRP’s effectiveness in managing chronic tendon injuries and knee osteoarthritis has been particularly notable, with studies showing that it can enhance tissue repair and provide symptomatic relief. However, variability in preparation methods and patient responses necessitates further research to optimize PRP protocols and standardize treatment practices.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) offer a powerful tool for tissue regeneration due to their potential to differentiate into various cell types and support tissue repair. MSCs have shown promising results in cartilage repair and bone healing, with clinical trials indicating improvements in joint function, pain reduction, and accelerated bone regeneration. Despite their potential, challenges such as variability in cell sources, preparation methods, and delivery techniques need to be addressed to ensure consistent and effective outcomes. Continued research into MSC biology and application methods is crucial to fully realize their therapeutic potential.

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) has established itself as an effective method for repairing large cartilage defects, particularly in the knee. ACI’s ability to restore cartilage and improve joint function has been well-documented, with many patients experiencing durable benefits over the long term. Nonetheless, ACI involves a complex and costly procedure with potential complications such as graft integration issues. Advances in ACI techniques and materials are necessary to enhance its accessibility and refine patient selection criteria.

Bone Graft Substitutes play a crucial role in facilitating bone healing and addressing defects and fractures. Synthetic and natural bone graft materials have proven effective in supporting bone regeneration and integration, offering a viable alternative to autografts with reduced donor site morbidity. Comparative studies indicate that bone graft substitutes can achieve comparable or superior outcomes to traditional grafting methods. However, considerations regarding graft resorption and infection highlight the need for ongoing evaluation and optimization of these materials.

In conclusion, orthobiologics represent a significant advancement in orthopedic medicine, offering innovative solutions to enhance healing, reduce recovery times, and improve functional outcomes. While the benefits of these therapies are evident, challenges such as variability in treatment protocols, cost, and the need for further research remain. As the field continues to evolve, the development of standardized treatment protocols, improved materials, and enhanced techniques will be crucial in maximizing the potential of orthobiologics. By addressing these challenges and advancing research, orthobiologics are poised to play an increasingly central role in advancing orthopedic care and achieving better outcomes for patients.

References

  • Andia, I., & Maffulli, N. (2015).Platelet-rich plasma for chronic tendinopathy: A review of the literature. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(23), 1370-1375.
  • Aro, H. T., et al. (2002).Effects of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 on the healing of segmental bone defects in rats. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 84(4), 679-690.
  • Bannister, G. C., & Bostrom, M. P. (2008).The use of stem cells in bone repair. Current Orthopaedics, 22(2), 109-113.
  • Dohan Ehrenfest, D. M., et al. (2012).In search of definitions and of a consensus for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) terminology. Journal of Periodontology, 83(6), 722-723.
  • Horwitz, E. M., et al. (2002).Marrow stromal cells are efficient in the repair of bone defects in animal models. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 17(4), 679-689.
  • Kuo, T. F., et al. (2016).The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma for chronic tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 4(11), 2325967116677831.
  • Li, X., et al. (2014).Mesenchymal stem cells for bone repair: Current status and future directions. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 32(8), 1026-1036.
  • Mautner, K., et al. (2014).Platelet-rich plasma treatment for chronic tendinopathy: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 42(6), 1259-1265.
  • Patel, S., et al. (2013).Platelet-rich plasma therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 8, 31.
  • Rashid, M. I., et al. (2017).Stem cell therapy in orthopedics: A comprehensive review. Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 12(5), 439-452.
  • Schemitsch, E. H., et al. (2013).Efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein for spinal fusion: A meta-analysis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 95(6), 539-546.
  • Wakitani, S., et al. (2002).Mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for cartilage repair in osteoarthritis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 402, 174-181.
  • Gothard, L., & Harkness, A. (2019).Platelet-rich plasma in orthopedics: A review of current research and clinical applications. Journal of Orthopedic Research, 37(10), 2100-2110. ht
  • Wang, T., et al. (2020).Comparative efficacy of PRP and MSCs for the treatment of tendinopathies: A systematic review. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 235(10), 7787-7802.
  • Dimitriou, R., et al. (2011).Bone healing and bone repair: The role of bone morphogenetic proteins. Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions, 11(4), 269-280.