Siddiq Bilal S, Giorgino Riccardo, Gillinov Stephen M, Lee Jonathan S, Dowley Kieran S, Cherian Nathan J, Martin Scott D
Sports Medicine Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 Aug 28;6(6):100991. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100991. eCollection 2024 Dec.
To (1) systematically assess which orthobiologic agents are being used in acetabular labral repairs and (2) report all available outcomes for patients undergoing operative management for labral repairs with orthobiologic agents.
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023. Articles were included if they used an orthobiologic agent during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral repair and reported functional outcomes. Each study was queried for demographic data, orthobiologic agent used, volume of agent used, imaging modality used to guide administration, follow-up period, and all reported outcomes. The following Boolean phrase was used to systematically search the current literature: ((Orthobiologics) OR (Platelet-rich plasma) OR (PRP) OR (Mesenchymal stem cells) OR (MSCs) OR (Hyaluronic acid) OR (Growth factors) OR (bone marrow aspirate) OR (BMAC)) AND (hip joint OR (acetabular labrum) OR (Chondrolabr∗ damage) OR (Chondrolabr∗ tear)) AND (outcome∗ OR function∗ OR PROM OR PRO OR arthr∗ OR image OR pain OR complication).
Three studies met the inclusion criteria and included 201 patients who received treatment with orthobiologic agents. Of these patients, 119 (59.7%) were women, with age ranging from 35 to 49 years. Ninety-seven patients (48.3%) received bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and 104 (51.7%) received platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Both BMAC studies showed no significant improvements compared with controls; however, a subanalysis limited to patients with moderate cartilage damage who received BMAC showed significantly improved 2-year patient-reported outcome measures (International Hip Outcome Tool 33 score, 82.5 vs 69.5; = .03). The one PRP study did not show significant improvements compared with controls. No complications were noted after either PRP or BMAC harvesting and application in any included study.
Overall, BMAC and PRP do not significantly improve patient-reported outcome measures compared with controls. However, there is limited evidence that BMAC may help patients with moderate cartilage damage.
Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
(1)系统评估髋臼盂唇修复中使用了哪些骨科生物制剂;(2)报告接受骨科生物制剂盂唇修复手术治疗的患者的所有可用结果。
于2023年8月检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库。如果文章在髋关节镜检查期间使用骨科生物制剂进行髋臼盂唇修复并报告了功能结果,则纳入该文章。对每项研究查询人口统计学数据、使用的骨科生物制剂、制剂使用量、用于指导给药的成像方式、随访期以及所有报告的结果。使用以下布尔短语系统检索当前文献:((骨科生物制剂)或(富血小板血浆)或(PRP)或(间充质干细胞)或(MSCs)或(透明质酸)或(生长因子)或(骨髓抽吸物)或(BMAC))且(髋关节或(髋臼盂唇)或(软骨盂唇∗损伤)或(软骨盂唇∗撕裂))且(结果∗或功能∗或PROM或PRO或关节∗或影像或疼痛或并发症)。
三项研究符合纳入标准,共纳入201例接受骨科生物制剂治疗的患者。在这些患者中,119例(59.7%)为女性,年龄在35至49岁之间。97例患者(48.3%)接受了骨髓抽吸浓缩物(BMAC),104例(51.7%)接受了富血小板血浆(PRP)。两项BMAC研究均显示与对照组相比无显著改善;然而,一项仅限于接受BMAC治疗的中度软骨损伤患者的亚分析显示,患者报告的2年结果指标有显著改善(国际髋关节结果工具33评分,82.5对69.5;P = 0.03)。一项PRP研究与对照组相比未显示出显著改善。在任何纳入研究中,PRP或BMAC采集和应用后均未发现并发症。
总体而言,与对照组相比,BMAC和PRP并未显著改善患者报告的结果指标。然而,有有限的证据表明BMAC可能对中度软骨损伤患者有帮助。
三级,对二级和三级研究的系统评价。