Orthopedics

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a refined product of autologous blood with a platelet concentration greater than that of whole blood. It is prepared via plasmapheresis utilizing a 2-stage centrifugation process and more than 40 commercially available systems are marketed to concentrate whole blood to PRP.¹ It is rich in biologic factors (growth factors, cytokines, proteins, cellular components) essential to the body’s response to injury. For this reason, it was first used in oromaxillofacial surgery in the 1950s, but its effects on the musculoskeletal system have yet to be clearly elucidated.² However, this lack of clarity has not deterred its widespread use among orthopedic surgeons. In this review, we aim to delineate the current understanding of PRP and its proven effectiveness in the treatment of rotator cuff tears, knee osteoarthritis, ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears, lateral epicondylitis, hamstring injuries, and Achilles tendinopathy.

Rotator Cuff Tears

Rotator cuff tears are one of the most common etiologies for shoulder pain and disability. The incidence continues to increase with the active aging population.³ Rotator cuff tears treated with arthroscopic repair have exhibited satisfactory pain relief and functional outcomes.^4-7 Despite advances in fixation techniques, the quality and speed of tendon-to-bone healing remains unpredictable, with repaired tendons exhibiting inferior mechanical properties that are susceptible to re-tear.^8-10

Numerous studies have investigated PRP application during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in an attempt to enhance and accelerate the repair process.^11-15 However, wide variability exists among protocols of how and when PRP is utilized to augment the repair. Warth and colleagues¹⁶ performed a meta-analysis of 11 Level I/II studies evaluating RCR with PRP augmentation. With regards to clinical outcome scores, they found no significant difference in pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), or visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores between those patients with or without PRP augmentation. However, they did note a significant increase in Constant scores when PRP was delivered to the tendon-bone interface rather than over the surface of the repair site. There was no significant difference in structural outcomes (evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] re-tear rates) between those RCRs with and without PRP augmentation, except in those tears >3 cm in anterior-posterior length using double-row technique, with the PRP group exhibiting a significantly decreased re-tear rate (25.9% vs 57.1%).¹⁶ Zhao and colleagues¹⁷ reported similar results in a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials, exhibiting no significant differences in clinical outcome scores or re-tear rates after RCR with and without PRP augmentation. Overall, most studies have failed to demonstrate a significant benefit with regards to re-tear rates or shoulder-specific outcomes with the addition of PRP during arthroscopic RCR.

Knee Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disorder, with an estimated prevalence of 10% of the world’s population age 60 years and older.¹⁸ The knee is commonly symptomatic, resulting in pain, disability, and significant healthcare costs. Novel biologic, nonoperative therapies, including intra-articular viscosupplementation and PRP injections, have been proposed to treat the early stages of osteoarthritis to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention.

A multitude of studies have been performed investigating the effects of PRP on knee osteoarthritis, revealing mixed results.^19-22 Campbell and colleagues²³ published a 2015 systematic review of 3 overlapping meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of intra-articular injection of PRP vs control (hyaluronic acid [HA] or placebo) in 3278 knees. They reported a significant improvement in patient outcome scores for the PRP group when compared to control from 2 to 12 months after injection, but due to significant differences within the included studies, the ideal number of injections or time intervals between injections remains unclear. Meheux and colleagues²⁴ reported a 2016 systematic review including 6 studies (817 knees) comparing PRP and HA injections. They demonstrated significantly better improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) outcome scores with PRP vs HA injections at 3 and 12 months postinjection. Similarly, Smith²⁵ conducted a Food and Drug Administration-sanctioned, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the effects of intra-articular leukocyte-poor autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) in 30 patients. He reported an improvement in the ACP treatment group WOMAC scores by 78% compared to 7% improvement in the placebo group after 12 months. Despite the heterogeneity amongst studies, the majority of published data suggests better symptomatic relief in patients with early knee degenerative changes, and use of PRP may be considered in this population.

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries

The anterior band of the UCL of the elbow provides stability to valgus stress. Overhead, high-velocity throwing athletes may cause repetitive injury to the UCL, resulting in partial or complete tears of the ligament. This may result in medial elbow pain, as well as decreased throwing velocity and accuracy. Athletes with complete UCL tears have few nonoperative treatment options and generally, operative treatment with UCL reconstruction is recommended for those athletes desiring to return to sport. However, it remains unclear how to definitively treat athletes with partial UCL tears. Recently, there has been an interest in treating these injuries with PRP in conjunction with physical therapy to facilitate a more predictable outcome.

Podesta and colleagues²⁶ published a case series of 34 athletes with MRI-diagnosed partial UCL tears who underwent ultrasound-guided UCL injections and physical therapy. At an average follow-up of 70 weeks, they reported an average return to play (RTP) of 12 weeks, with significant improvements in Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) and DASH outcome scores, and decreased dynamic ulnohumeral joint widening to valgus stress on ultrasound. Most athletes (30/34) returned to their previous level of play, and 1 patient underwent subsequent UCL reconstruction. This study demonstrates that PRP may be used in conjunction with physical therapy and an interval throwing program for the treatment of partial UCL tears, but without a comparison control group, more studies are necessary to delineate the role of PRP in this population.

Lateral Elbow Epicondylitis

Lateral elbow epicondylitis, also known as “tennis elbow,” is thought to be caused by repetitive wrist extension and is more likely to present in patients with various comorbidities such as rotator cuff pathology or a history of smoking.^27-29 The condition typically presents as radiating pain centered about the lateral epicondyle. Annual incidence ranges from 0.34% to 3%, with the most recent large-scale, population-based study estimating that nearly 1 million individuals in the United States develop lateral elbow epicondylitis each year.³⁰ For the majority of patients, symptoms resolve after 6 to 12 months of various nonoperative or minimally invasive treatments.^31-33 Those who develop chronic symptoms (>12 months) may benefit from surgical intervention.³⁴ The use of PRP has become a contentious topic of debate in treating lateral epicondylitis. Its use and efficacy have been empirically examined and compared among more traditional treatments.^35-37

In a small case-series of 6 patients, contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging was utilized to demonstrate that PRP injection therapy may induce vascularization of the myotendinous junction of the common extensor tendon up to 6 months following injection.³⁸ These physiologic changes may precede observable clinical improvements. Brklijac and colleagues³⁹ prospectively followed 34 patients who had refractory symptoms despite conservative treatment and elected to undergo injection with PRP. At a mean follow-up of 26 weeks, 88.2% of the patients demonstrated improvements on their Oxford Elbow Score (OES). While potentially promising, case series lack large sample sizes, longitudinal analysis, and adequate control groups for comparative analyses of treatments, thereby increasing the likelihood of unintended selection bias.

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no difference between PRP and corticosteroid (CS) injection treatments in the short term for symptomatic lateral elbow epicondylitis. At 15 days, 1 month, and 6 months postinjection, no significant difference was found between PRP and CS injections in dynamometer strength measurements nor patient outcome scores (VAS, DASH, OES, and Mayo Clinic Performance Index for Elbow [MMCPIE]).^40,41 In fact, multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated PRP to be less effective at 1 and 3 months compared to CS injections, as assessed by the Patient Rated Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire, VAS, MMCPIE, and Nirschl scores.^42,43 One mid-term, multi-center randomized controlled trial published by Mishra and colleagues⁴⁴ compared PRP injections to an active control group, demonstrating a significant improvement in VAS pain scores at 24 weeks, but no difference in the PRTEE outcome. The available evidence indicates PRP injection therapy remains limited in utility for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, particularly in the short term when compared to CS injections. In the midterm to long term, PRP therapy may provide some benefit, but ultimately, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate the effects of PRP versus the natural course of tendon healing and symptom resolution.

Hamstring Injuries

Acute hamstring injuries are common across all levels and types of sport, particularly those in which sprinting or running is involved. While there is no consensus within the literature on how RTP after hamstring injury should be managed or defined, most injuries seem to resolve around 3 to 6 weeks.⁴⁵ The proximal myotendinous junction of the long head of the biceps femoris and semitendinosus are commonly associated with significant pain and edema after acute hamstring injury.⁴⁶ The amount of edema resulting from grade 1 and 2 hamstring injuries has been found to correlate (minimally) with time to RTP in elite athletes.⁴⁷ PRP injection near the proximal myotendinous hamstring origin has been theorized to help speed the recovery process after acute hamstring injury. To date, the literature demonstrates mixed and limited benefit of PRP injection therapy for acute hamstring injury.

Few studies have shown improvements of PRP therapy over typical nonoperative management (rest, physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in acute hamstring injury, but the results must be interpreted carefully.^48,49 Wetzel and colleagues⁴⁸ retrospectively reviewed 17 patients with acute hamstring injury, 12 of whom failed typical management and received PRP injection at the hamstring origin. This group demonstrated significant improvements in their VAS and Nirschl scores at follow-up, whereas the 5 patients who did not receive the injection did not. However, this study exhibited significant limitations inherent to a retrospective review with a small sample size. Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ conducted a randomized controlled trial of 24 athletes with diagnosed grade 2a acute hamstring injuries, comparing autologous PRP therapy combined with a rehabilitation program versus rehabilitation program alone. RTP, changes in pain severity (Brief Pain Injury-Short Form [BPI-SF] questions 2-6), and pain interference (BPI-SF questions 9A-9G) scores over time were examined. Athletes in the PRP group exhibited no difference in outcomes scores, but returned to play sooner than controls (26.7 vs 42.5 days).

Mejia and Bradley⁵⁰ have reported their experience in treating 12 National Football League (NFL) players with acute MRI grade 1 or 2 hamstring injuries with a series of PRP injections at the site of injury. They found a 1-game difference in earlier RTP when compared to the predicted RTP based on MRI grading. Similarly, Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ performed a randomized control trial published in 2014, reporting an earlier RTP (26.7 vs 42.5 days) when comparing single PRP injection vs rehabilitation alone in 28 patients diagnosed with acute ultrasound grade 2 hamstring injuries. On the contrary, a small case-control study of NFL players and a retrospective cohort study of athletes with severe hamstring injuries demonstrated no difference in RTP when PRP injected patients were compared with controls.^51,52 Larger randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable results, including a study of 90 professional athletes in whom a single PRP injection did not decrease RTP or lessen the risk of re-injury at 2 and 6 months.⁵³ In another large multicenter randomized controlled trial examining 80 competitive and recreational athletes, PRP did not accelerate RTP, lessen the risk of 2-month or 1-year re-injury rate, or improve secondary measures of MRI parameters, subjective patient satisfaction, or the hamstring outcome score.⁵⁴ Although further study is warranted, available evidence suggests limited utility of PRP injection in the treatment of acute hamstring injuries.

Achilles Tendinopathy

Noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy is a common source of pain for both recreational and competitive athletes. Typically thought of as an overuse syndrome, Achilles tendinopathy may result in significant pain and swelling, often at the site of its tenuous blood supply, approximately 2 to 7 cm proximal to its insertion.⁵⁵ Conservative management frequently begins with rest, activity/shoe modification, physical therapy, and eccentric loading exercises.⁵⁶ For those whom conservative management has failed to reduce symptoms after 6 months, more invasive treatment options may be considered. Peritendinous PRP injection has become an alternative approach in treating Achilles tendinopathy refractory to conservative treatment.

In the few randomized controlled trials published, the data demonstrates no significant improvements in clinical outcomes from PRP injection for Achilles tendinopathy. Kearney and colleagues⁵⁷ conducted a pilot study of 20 patients randomized into PRP injection or eccentric loading program for mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy, in which Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment (VISA-A), EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), and complications associated with the injection were recorded at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Although this was a pilot study with a small sample size, no significant difference was found between groups across these time periods. Similarly, de Vos and colleagues^58,59 conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 54 patients with chronic mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy and randomized them into eccentric exercise therapy with either a PRP injection or a saline injected placebo groups. VISA-A scores were recorded and imaging parameters assessing tendon structure by ultrasonographic tissue characterization and color Doppler ultrasonography were taken with follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. VISA-A scores improved significantly in both groups after 24 weeks, but the difference was not statistically significant between groups. In addition, tendon structure and neovascularization (exhibited by color Doppler ultrasonography) improved in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. The current literature does not support the use of PRP in treatment of Achilles tendinopathy, as it has failed to reveal additional benefits over conventional treatment alone. Future prospective, well-designed randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes will need to be conducted to ultimately conclude whether or not PRP deserves a role in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy.

Summary

In theory, the use of PRP within orthopedic surgery makes a great deal of sense to accelerate and augment the healing process of the aforementioned musculoskeletal injuries. However, the vast majority of published literature is Level III and IV evidence. Future research may provide the missing critical information of optimal growth factor, platelet, and leukocyte concentrations necessary for the desired effect, as well as the appropriate delivery method and timing of PRP application in different target tissues. Evidence-based guidelines to direct the use of PRP will benefit from more homogenous, repeatable, and randomized controlled trials.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a refined product of autologous blood with a platelet concentration greater than that of whole blood. It is prepared via plasmapheresis utilizing a 2-stage centrifugation process and more than 40 commercially available systems are marketed to concentrate whole blood to PRP.¹ It is rich in biologic factors (growth factors, cytokines, proteins, cellular components) essential to the body’s response to injury. For this reason, it was first used in oromaxillofacial surgery in the 1950s, but its effects on the musculoskeletal system have yet to be clearly elucidated.² However, this lack of clarity has not deterred its widespread use among orthopedic surgeons. In this review, we aim to delineate the current understanding of PRP and its proven effectiveness in the treatment of rotator cuff tears, knee osteoarthritis, ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears, lateral epicondylitis, hamstring injuries, and Achilles tendinopathy.

Rotator Cuff Tears

Rotator cuff tears are one of the most common etiologies for shoulder pain and disability. The incidence continues to increase with the active aging population.³ Rotator cuff tears treated with arthroscopic repair have exhibited satisfactory pain relief and functional outcomes.^4-7 Despite advances in fixation techniques, the quality and speed of tendon-to-bone healing remains unpredictable, with repaired tendons exhibiting inferior mechanical properties that are susceptible to re-tear.^8-10

Numerous studies have investigated PRP application during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in an attempt to enhance and accelerate the repair process.^11-15 However, wide variability exists among protocols of how and when PRP is utilized to augment the repair. Warth and colleagues¹⁶ performed a meta-analysis of 11 Level I/II studies evaluating RCR with PRP augmentation. With regards to clinical outcome scores, they found no significant difference in pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), or visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores between those patients with or without PRP augmentation. However, they did note a significant increase in Constant scores when PRP was delivered to the tendon-bone interface rather than over the surface of the repair site. There was no significant difference in structural outcomes (evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] re-tear rates) between those RCRs with and without PRP augmentation, except in those tears >3 cm in anterior-posterior length using double-row technique, with the PRP group exhibiting a significantly decreased re-tear rate (25.9% vs 57.1%).¹⁶ Zhao and colleagues¹⁷ reported similar results in a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials, exhibiting no significant differences in clinical outcome scores or re-tear rates after RCR with and without PRP augmentation. Overall, most studies have failed to demonstrate a significant benefit with regards to re-tear rates or shoulder-specific outcomes with the addition of PRP during arthroscopic RCR.

Knee Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disorder, with an estimated prevalence of 10% of the world’s population age 60 years and older.¹⁸ The knee is commonly symptomatic, resulting in pain, disability, and significant healthcare costs. Novel biologic, nonoperative therapies, including intra-articular viscosupplementation and PRP injections, have been proposed to treat the early stages of osteoarthritis to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention.

A multitude of studies have been performed investigating the effects of PRP on knee osteoarthritis, revealing mixed results.^19-22 Campbell and colleagues²³ published a 2015 systematic review of 3 overlapping meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of intra-articular injection of PRP vs control (hyaluronic acid [HA] or placebo) in 3278 knees. They reported a significant improvement in patient outcome scores for the PRP group when compared to control from 2 to 12 months after injection, but due to significant differences within the included studies, the ideal number of injections or time intervals between injections remains unclear. Meheux and colleagues²⁴ reported a 2016 systematic review including 6 studies (817 knees) comparing PRP and HA injections. They demonstrated significantly better improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) outcome scores with PRP vs HA injections at 3 and 12 months postinjection. Similarly, Smith²⁵ conducted a Food and Drug Administration-sanctioned, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the effects of intra-articular leukocyte-poor autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) in 30 patients. He reported an improvement in the ACP treatment group WOMAC scores by 78% compared to 7% improvement in the placebo group after 12 months. Despite the heterogeneity amongst studies, the majority of published data suggests better symptomatic relief in patients with early knee degenerative changes, and use of PRP may be considered in this population.

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries

The anterior band of the UCL of the elbow provides stability to valgus stress. Overhead, high-velocity throwing athletes may cause repetitive injury to the UCL, resulting in partial or complete tears of the ligament. This may result in medial elbow pain, as well as decreased throwing velocity and accuracy. Athletes with complete UCL tears have few nonoperative treatment options and generally, operative treatment with UCL reconstruction is recommended for those athletes desiring to return to sport. However, it remains unclear how to definitively treat athletes with partial UCL tears. Recently, there has been an interest in treating these injuries with PRP in conjunction with physical therapy to facilitate a more predictable outcome.

Podesta and colleagues²⁶ published a case series of 34 athletes with MRI-diagnosed partial UCL tears who underwent ultrasound-guided UCL injections and physical therapy. At an average follow-up of 70 weeks, they reported an average return to play (RTP) of 12 weeks, with significant improvements in Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) and DASH outcome scores, and decreased dynamic ulnohumeral joint widening to valgus stress on ultrasound. Most athletes (30/34) returned to their previous level of play, and 1 patient underwent subsequent UCL reconstruction. This study demonstrates that PRP may be used in conjunction with physical therapy and an interval throwing program for the treatment of partial UCL tears, but without a comparison control group, more studies are necessary to delineate the role of PRP in this population.

Lateral Elbow Epicondylitis

Lateral elbow epicondylitis, also known as “tennis elbow,” is thought to be caused by repetitive wrist extension and is more likely to present in patients with various comorbidities such as rotator cuff pathology or a history of smoking.^27-29 The condition typically presents as radiating pain centered about the lateral epicondyle. Annual incidence ranges from 0.34% to 3%, with the most recent large-scale, population-based study estimating that nearly 1 million individuals in the United States develop lateral elbow epicondylitis each year.³⁰ For the majority of patients, symptoms resolve after 6 to 12 months of various nonoperative or minimally invasive treatments.^31-33 Those who develop chronic symptoms (>12 months) may benefit from surgical intervention.³⁴ The use of PRP has become a contentious topic of debate in treating lateral epicondylitis. Its use and efficacy have been empirically examined and compared among more traditional treatments.^35-37

In a small case-series of 6 patients, contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging was utilized to demonstrate that PRP injection therapy may induce vascularization of the myotendinous junction of the common extensor tendon up to 6 months following injection.³⁸ These physiologic changes may precede observable clinical improvements. Brklijac and colleagues³⁹ prospectively followed 34 patients who had refractory symptoms despite conservative treatment and elected to undergo injection with PRP. At a mean follow-up of 26 weeks, 88.2% of the patients demonstrated improvements on their Oxford Elbow Score (OES). While potentially promising, case series lack large sample sizes, longitudinal analysis, and adequate control groups for comparative analyses of treatments, thereby increasing the likelihood of unintended selection bias.

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no difference between PRP and corticosteroid (CS) injection treatments in the short term for symptomatic lateral elbow epicondylitis. At 15 days, 1 month, and 6 months postinjection, no significant difference was found between PRP and CS injections in dynamometer strength measurements nor patient outcome scores (VAS, DASH, OES, and Mayo Clinic Performance Index for Elbow [MMCPIE]).^40,41 In fact, multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated PRP to be less effective at 1 and 3 months compared to CS injections, as assessed by the Patient Rated Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire, VAS, MMCPIE, and Nirschl scores.^42,43 One mid-term, multi-center randomized controlled trial published by Mishra and colleagues⁴⁴ compared PRP injections to an active control group, demonstrating a significant improvement in VAS pain scores at 24 weeks, but no difference in the PRTEE outcome. The available evidence indicates PRP injection therapy remains limited in utility for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, particularly in the short term when compared to CS injections. In the midterm to long term, PRP therapy may provide some benefit, but ultimately, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate the effects of PRP versus the natural course of tendon healing and symptom resolution.

Hamstring Injuries

Acute hamstring injuries are common across all levels and types of sport, particularly those in which sprinting or running is involved. While there is no consensus within the literature on how RTP after hamstring injury should be managed or defined, most injuries seem to resolve around 3 to 6 weeks.⁴⁵ The proximal myotendinous junction of the long head of the biceps femoris and semitendinosus are commonly associated with significant pain and edema after acute hamstring injury.⁴⁶ The amount of edema resulting from grade 1 and 2 hamstring injuries has been found to correlate (minimally) with time to RTP in elite athletes.⁴⁷ PRP injection near the proximal myotendinous hamstring origin has been theorized to help speed the recovery process after acute hamstring injury. To date, the literature demonstrates mixed and limited benefit of PRP injection therapy for acute hamstring injury.

Few studies have shown improvements of PRP therapy over typical nonoperative management (rest, physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in acute hamstring injury, but the results must be interpreted carefully.^48,49 Wetzel and colleagues⁴⁸ retrospectively reviewed 17 patients with acute hamstring injury, 12 of whom failed typical management and received PRP injection at the hamstring origin. This group demonstrated significant improvements in their VAS and Nirschl scores at follow-up, whereas the 5 patients who did not receive the injection did not. However, this study exhibited significant limitations inherent to a retrospective review with a small sample size. Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ conducted a randomized controlled trial of 24 athletes with diagnosed grade 2a acute hamstring injuries, comparing autologous PRP therapy combined with a rehabilitation program versus rehabilitation program alone. RTP, changes in pain severity (Brief Pain Injury-Short Form [BPI-SF] questions 2-6), and pain interference (BPI-SF questions 9A-9G) scores over time were examined. Athletes in the PRP group exhibited no difference in outcomes scores, but returned to play sooner than controls (26.7 vs 42.5 days).

Mejia and Bradley⁵⁰ have reported their experience in treating 12 National Football League (NFL) players with acute MRI grade 1 or 2 hamstring injuries with a series of PRP injections at the site of injury. They found a 1-game difference in earlier RTP when compared to the predicted RTP based on MRI grading. Similarly, Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ performed a randomized control trial published in 2014, reporting an earlier RTP (26.7 vs 42.5 days) when comparing single PRP injection vs rehabilitation alone in 28 patients diagnosed with acute ultrasound grade 2 hamstring injuries. On the contrary, a small case-control study of NFL players and a retrospective cohort study of athletes with severe hamstring injuries demonstrated no difference in RTP when PRP injected patients were compared with controls.^51,52 Larger randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable results, including a study of 90 professional athletes in whom a single PRP injection did not decrease RTP or lessen the risk of re-injury at 2 and 6 months.⁵³ In another large multicenter randomized controlled trial examining 80 competitive and recreational athletes, PRP did not accelerate RTP, lessen the risk of 2-month or 1-year re-injury rate, or improve secondary measures of MRI parameters, subjective patient satisfaction, or the hamstring outcome score.⁵⁴ Although further study is warranted, available evidence suggests limited utility of PRP injection in the treatment of acute hamstring injuries.

Achilles Tendinopathy

Noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy is a common source of pain for both recreational and competitive athletes. Typically thought of as an overuse syndrome, Achilles tendinopathy may result in significant pain and swelling, often at the site of its tenuous blood supply, approximately 2 to 7 cm proximal to its insertion.⁵⁵ Conservative management frequently begins with rest, activity/shoe modification, physical therapy, and eccentric loading exercises.⁵⁶ For those whom conservative management has failed to reduce symptoms after 6 months, more invasive treatment options may be considered. Peritendinous PRP injection has become an alternative approach in treating Achilles tendinopathy refractory to conservative treatment.

In the few randomized controlled trials published, the data demonstrates no significant improvements in clinical outcomes from PRP injection for Achilles tendinopathy. Kearney and colleagues⁵⁷ conducted a pilot study of 20 patients randomized into PRP injection or eccentric loading program for mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy, in which Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment (VISA-A), EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), and complications associated with the injection were recorded at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Although this was a pilot study with a small sample size, no significant difference was found between groups across these time periods. Similarly, de Vos and colleagues^58,59 conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 54 patients with chronic mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy and randomized them into eccentric exercise therapy with either a PRP injection or a saline injected placebo groups. VISA-A scores were recorded and imaging parameters assessing tendon structure by ultrasonographic tissue characterization and color Doppler ultrasonography were taken with follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. VISA-A scores improved significantly in both groups after 24 weeks, but the difference was not statistically significant between groups. In addition, tendon structure and neovascularization (exhibited by color Doppler ultrasonography) improved in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. The current literature does not support the use of PRP in treatment of Achilles tendinopathy, as it has failed to reveal additional benefits over conventional treatment alone. Future prospective, well-designed randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes will need to be conducted to ultimately conclude whether or not PRP deserves a role in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy.

Summary

In theory, the use of PRP within orthopedic surgery makes a great deal of sense to accelerate and augment the healing process of the aforementioned musculoskeletal injuries. However, the vast majority of published literature is Level III and IV evidence. Future research may provide the missing critical information of optimal growth factor, platelet, and leukocyte concentrations necessary for the desired effect, as well as the appropriate delivery method and timing of PRP application in different target tissues. Evidence-based guidelines to direct the use of PRP will benefit from more homogenous, repeatable, and randomized controlled trials.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a refined product of autologous blood with a platelet concentration greater than that of whole blood. It is prepared via plasmapheresis utilizing a 2-stage centrifugation process and more than 40 commercially available systems are marketed to concentrate whole blood to PRP.¹ It is rich in biologic factors (growth factors, cytokines, proteins, cellular components) essential to the body’s response to injury. For this reason, it was first used in oromaxillofacial surgery in the 1950s, but its effects on the musculoskeletal system have yet to be clearly elucidated.² However, this lack of clarity has not deterred its widespread use among orthopedic surgeons. In this review, we aim to delineate the current understanding of PRP and its proven effectiveness in the treatment of rotator cuff tears, knee osteoarthritis, ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears, lateral epicondylitis, hamstring injuries, and Achilles tendinopathy.

Rotator Cuff Tears

Rotator cuff tears are one of the most common etiologies for shoulder pain and disability. The incidence continues to increase with the active aging population.³ Rotator cuff tears treated with arthroscopic repair have exhibited satisfactory pain relief and functional outcomes.^4-7 Despite advances in fixation techniques, the quality and speed of tendon-to-bone healing remains unpredictable, with repaired tendons exhibiting inferior mechanical properties that are susceptible to re-tear.^8-10

Numerous studies have investigated PRP application during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in an attempt to enhance and accelerate the repair process.^11-15 However, wide variability exists among protocols of how and when PRP is utilized to augment the repair. Warth and colleagues¹⁶ performed a meta-analysis of 11 Level I/II studies evaluating RCR with PRP augmentation. With regards to clinical outcome scores, they found no significant difference in pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), or visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores between those patients with or without PRP augmentation. However, they did note a significant increase in Constant scores when PRP was delivered to the tendon-bone interface rather than over the surface of the repair site. There was no significant difference in structural outcomes (evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] re-tear rates) between those RCRs with and without PRP augmentation, except in those tears >3 cm in anterior-posterior length using double-row technique, with the PRP group exhibiting a significantly decreased re-tear rate (25.9% vs 57.1%).¹⁶ Zhao and colleagues¹⁷ reported similar results in a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials, exhibiting no significant differences in clinical outcome scores or re-tear rates after RCR with and without PRP augmentation. Overall, most studies have failed to demonstrate a significant benefit with regards to re-tear rates or shoulder-specific outcomes with the addition of PRP during arthroscopic RCR.

Knee Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disorder, with an estimated prevalence of 10% of the world’s population age 60 years and older.¹⁸ The knee is commonly symptomatic, resulting in pain, disability, and significant healthcare costs. Novel biologic, nonoperative therapies, including intra-articular viscosupplementation and PRP injections, have been proposed to treat the early stages of osteoarthritis to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention.

A multitude of studies have been performed investigating the effects of PRP on knee osteoarthritis, revealing mixed results.^19-22 Campbell and colleagues²³ published a 2015 systematic review of 3 overlapping meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of intra-articular injection of PRP vs control (hyaluronic acid [HA] or placebo) in 3278 knees. They reported a significant improvement in patient outcome scores for the PRP group when compared to control from 2 to 12 months after injection, but due to significant differences within the included studies, the ideal number of injections or time intervals between injections remains unclear. Meheux and colleagues²⁴ reported a 2016 systematic review including 6 studies (817 knees) comparing PRP and HA injections. They demonstrated significantly better improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) outcome scores with PRP vs HA injections at 3 and 12 months postinjection. Similarly, Smith²⁵ conducted a Food and Drug Administration-sanctioned, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the effects of intra-articular leukocyte-poor autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) in 30 patients. He reported an improvement in the ACP treatment group WOMAC scores by 78% compared to 7% improvement in the placebo group after 12 months. Despite the heterogeneity amongst studies, the majority of published data suggests better symptomatic relief in patients with early knee degenerative changes, and use of PRP may be considered in this population.

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries

The anterior band of the UCL of the elbow provides stability to valgus stress. Overhead, high-velocity throwing athletes may cause repetitive injury to the UCL, resulting in partial or complete tears of the ligament. This may result in medial elbow pain, as well as decreased throwing velocity and accuracy. Athletes with complete UCL tears have few nonoperative treatment options and generally, operative treatment with UCL reconstruction is recommended for those athletes desiring to return to sport. However, it remains unclear how to definitively treat athletes with partial UCL tears. Recently, there has been an interest in treating these injuries with PRP in conjunction with physical therapy to facilitate a more predictable outcome.

Podesta and colleagues²⁶ published a case series of 34 athletes with MRI-diagnosed partial UCL tears who underwent ultrasound-guided UCL injections and physical therapy. At an average follow-up of 70 weeks, they reported an average return to play (RTP) of 12 weeks, with significant improvements in Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) and DASH outcome scores, and decreased dynamic ulnohumeral joint widening to valgus stress on ultrasound. Most athletes (30/34) returned to their previous level of play, and 1 patient underwent subsequent UCL reconstruction. This study demonstrates that PRP may be used in conjunction with physical therapy and an interval throwing program for the treatment of partial UCL tears, but without a comparison control group, more studies are necessary to delineate the role of PRP in this population.

Lateral Elbow Epicondylitis

Lateral elbow epicondylitis, also known as “tennis elbow,” is thought to be caused by repetitive wrist extension and is more likely to present in patients with various comorbidities such as rotator cuff pathology or a history of smoking.^27-29 The condition typically presents as radiating pain centered about the lateral epicondyle. Annual incidence ranges from 0.34% to 3%, with the most recent large-scale, population-based study estimating that nearly 1 million individuals in the United States develop lateral elbow epicondylitis each year.³⁰ For the majority of patients, symptoms resolve after 6 to 12 months of various nonoperative or minimally invasive treatments.^31-33 Those who develop chronic symptoms (>12 months) may benefit from surgical intervention.³⁴ The use of PRP has become a contentious topic of debate in treating lateral epicondylitis. Its use and efficacy have been empirically examined and compared among more traditional treatments.^35-37

In a small case-series of 6 patients, contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging was utilized to demonstrate that PRP injection therapy may induce vascularization of the myotendinous junction of the common extensor tendon up to 6 months following injection.³⁸ These physiologic changes may precede observable clinical improvements. Brklijac and colleagues³⁹ prospectively followed 34 patients who had refractory symptoms despite conservative treatment and elected to undergo injection with PRP. At a mean follow-up of 26 weeks, 88.2% of the patients demonstrated improvements on their Oxford Elbow Score (OES). While potentially promising, case series lack large sample sizes, longitudinal analysis, and adequate control groups for comparative analyses of treatments, thereby increasing the likelihood of unintended selection bias.

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no difference between PRP and corticosteroid (CS) injection treatments in the short term for symptomatic lateral elbow epicondylitis. At 15 days, 1 month, and 6 months postinjection, no significant difference was found between PRP and CS injections in dynamometer strength measurements nor patient outcome scores (VAS, DASH, OES, and Mayo Clinic Performance Index for Elbow [MMCPIE]).^40,41 In fact, multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated PRP to be less effective at 1 and 3 months compared to CS injections, as assessed by the Patient Rated Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire, VAS, MMCPIE, and Nirschl scores.^42,43 One mid-term, multi-center randomized controlled trial published by Mishra and colleagues⁴⁴ compared PRP injections to an active control group, demonstrating a significant improvement in VAS pain scores at 24 weeks, but no difference in the PRTEE outcome. The available evidence indicates PRP injection therapy remains limited in utility for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, particularly in the short term when compared to CS injections. In the midterm to long term, PRP therapy may provide some benefit, but ultimately, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate the effects of PRP versus the natural course of tendon healing and symptom resolution.

Hamstring Injuries

Acute hamstring injuries are common across all levels and types of sport, particularly those in which sprinting or running is involved. While there is no consensus within the literature on how RTP after hamstring injury should be managed or defined, most injuries seem to resolve around 3 to 6 weeks.⁴⁵ The proximal myotendinous junction of the long head of the biceps femoris and semitendinosus are commonly associated with significant pain and edema after acute hamstring injury.⁴⁶ The amount of edema resulting from grade 1 and 2 hamstring injuries has been found to correlate (minimally) with time to RTP in elite athletes.⁴⁷ PRP injection near the proximal myotendinous hamstring origin has been theorized to help speed the recovery process after acute hamstring injury. To date, the literature demonstrates mixed and limited benefit of PRP injection therapy for acute hamstring injury.

Few studies have shown improvements of PRP therapy over typical nonoperative management (rest, physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in acute hamstring injury, but the results must be interpreted carefully.^48,49 Wetzel and colleagues⁴⁸ retrospectively reviewed 17 patients with acute hamstring injury, 12 of whom failed typical management and received PRP injection at the hamstring origin. This group demonstrated significant improvements in their VAS and Nirschl scores at follow-up, whereas the 5 patients who did not receive the injection did not. However, this study exhibited significant limitations inherent to a retrospective review with a small sample size. Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ conducted a randomized controlled trial of 24 athletes with diagnosed grade 2a acute hamstring injuries, comparing autologous PRP therapy combined with a rehabilitation program versus rehabilitation program alone. RTP, changes in pain severity (Brief Pain Injury-Short Form [BPI-SF] questions 2-6), and pain interference (BPI-SF questions 9A-9G) scores over time were examined. Athletes in the PRP group exhibited no difference in outcomes scores, but returned to play sooner than controls (26.7 vs 42.5 days).

Mejia and Bradley⁵⁰ have reported their experience in treating 12 National Football League (NFL) players with acute MRI grade 1 or 2 hamstring injuries with a series of PRP injections at the site of injury. They found a 1-game difference in earlier RTP when compared to the predicted RTP based on MRI grading. Similarly, Hamid and colleagues⁴⁹ performed a randomized control trial published in 2014, reporting an earlier RTP (26.7 vs 42.5 days) when comparing single PRP injection vs rehabilitation alone in 28 patients diagnosed with acute ultrasound grade 2 hamstring injuries. On the contrary, a small case-control study of NFL players and a retrospective cohort study of athletes with severe hamstring injuries demonstrated no difference in RTP when PRP injected patients were compared with controls.^51,52 Larger randomized controlled trials have demonstrated comparable results, including a study of 90 professional athletes in whom a single PRP injection did not decrease RTP or lessen the risk of re-injury at 2 and 6 months.⁵³ In another large multicenter randomized controlled trial examining 80 competitive and recreational athletes, PRP did not accelerate RTP, lessen the risk of 2-month or 1-year re-injury rate, or improve secondary measures of MRI parameters, subjective patient satisfaction, or the hamstring outcome score.⁵⁴ Although further study is warranted, available evidence suggests limited utility of PRP injection in the treatment of acute hamstring injuries.

Achilles Tendinopathy

Noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy is a common source of pain for both recreational and competitive athletes. Typically thought of as an overuse syndrome, Achilles tendinopathy may result in significant pain and swelling, often at the site of its tenuous blood supply, approximately 2 to 7 cm proximal to its insertion.⁵⁵ Conservative management frequently begins with rest, activity/shoe modification, physical therapy, and eccentric loading exercises.⁵⁶ For those whom conservative management has failed to reduce symptoms after 6 months, more invasive treatment options may be considered. Peritendinous PRP injection has become an alternative approach in treating Achilles tendinopathy refractory to conservative treatment.

In the few randomized controlled trials published, the data demonstrates no significant improvements in clinical outcomes from PRP injection for Achilles tendinopathy. Kearney and colleagues⁵⁷ conducted a pilot study of 20 patients randomized into PRP injection or eccentric loading program for mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy, in which Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment (VISA-A), EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), and complications associated with the injection were recorded at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Although this was a pilot study with a small sample size, no significant difference was found between groups across these time periods. Similarly, de Vos and colleagues^58,59 conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 54 patients with chronic mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy and randomized them into eccentric exercise therapy with either a PRP injection or a saline injected placebo groups. VISA-A scores were recorded and imaging parameters assessing tendon structure by ultrasonographic tissue characterization and color Doppler ultrasonography were taken with follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. VISA-A scores improved significantly in both groups after 24 weeks, but the difference was not statistically significant between groups. In addition, tendon structure and neovascularization (exhibited by color Doppler ultrasonography) improved in both groups, with no significant difference between groups. The current literature does not support the use of PRP in treatment of Achilles tendinopathy, as it has failed to reveal additional benefits over conventional treatment alone. Future prospective, well-designed randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes will need to be conducted to ultimately conclude whether or not PRP deserves a role in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy.

Summary

In theory, the use of PRP within orthopedic surgery makes a great deal of sense to accelerate and augment the healing process of the aforementioned musculoskeletal injuries. However, the vast majority of published literature is Level III and IV evidence. Future research may provide the missing critical information of optimal growth factor, platelet, and leukocyte concentrations necessary for the desired effect, as well as the appropriate delivery method and timing of PRP application in different target tissues. Evidence-based guidelines to direct the use of PRP will benefit from more homogenous, repeatable, and randomized controlled trials.

Biologic use in orthopedics is a continuously evolving field that complements technical, anatomic, and biomechanical advancements in orthopedics. Biologic agents are receiving increasing attention for their use in augmenting healing of muscles, tendons, ligaments, and osseous structures. As biologic augmentation strategies become increasingly utilized in bony and soft-tissue injuries, research on stem cell use in orthopedics continues to increase. Stem cell-based therapies for the repair or regeneration of muscle and tendon represent a promising technology going forward for numerous diseases.¹

Stem cells by definition are undifferentiated cells that have 4 main characteristics: (1) mobilization during angiogenesis, (2) differentiation into specialized cell types, (3) proliferation and regeneration, and (4) release of immune regulators and growth factors.² Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have garnered the most attention in the field of surgery due to their ability to differentiate into the tissues of interest for the surgeon.³ This includes both bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (bm-MSCs) and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (a-MSCs). These multipotent stem cells in adults originate from mesenchymal tissues, including bone marrow, tendon, adipose, and muscle tissue.⁴ They are attractive for clinical use because of their multipotent potential and relative ease of growth in culture.⁵ They also exert a paracrine effect to modulate and control inflammation, stimulate endogenous cell repair and proliferation, inhibit apoptosis, and improve blood flow through secretion of chemokines, cytokines, and growth factors.^6,7

Questions exist regarding the best way to administer stem cells, whether systematic administration is possible for these cells to localize to the tissue in need, or more likely if direct application to the pathologic area is necessary.^8,9 A number of sources, purification process, and modes of delivery are available, but the most effective means of preparation and administration are still under investigation. The goal of this review is to illustrate the current state of knowledge surrounding stem cell therapy in orthopedics with a focus on osteoarthritis, tendinopathy, articular cartilage, and enhancement of surgical procedures.

Important Considerations

Common stem cell isolates include embryonic, induced pluripotent, and mesenchymal formulations (Table 1). MSCs can be obtained from multiple sites, including but not limited to the adult bone marrow, adipose, muscular, or tendinous tissues, and their use has been highlighted in the study of numerous orthopedic and nonorthopedic pathologies over the course of the last decade. Research on the use of embryonic stem cells in medical therapy with human implications has received substantial attention, with many ethical concerns by those opposed, and the existence of a potential risk of malignant alterations.^8,10 Amniotic-derived stem cells can be isolated from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, or the placenta and thus do not harbor the same social constraints as the aforementioned embryonic cells; however, they do not harbor the same magnitude of multi-differentiation potential, either.⁴

Adult MSCs are more locally available and easy to obtain for treatment when compared with embryonic and fetal stem cells, and the former has a lower immunogenicity, which allows allogeneic use.¹¹ Safety has been preliminarily demonstrated in use thus far; Centeno and colleagues¹² found no neoplastic tissue generation at the site of stem cell injection after 3 years postinjection for a cohort of patients who were treated with autologous bm-MSCs for various pathologies. Self-limited pain and swelling are the most commonly reported adverse events after use.¹³ However, long-term data are lacking in many instances to definitively suggest the absence of possible complications.

Basic Science

Stem cell research encompasses a wide range of rapidly developing treatment strategies that are applicable to virtually every field of medicine. In general, stem cells can be classified as embryonic stem cells (ESCs), induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, or adult-derived MSCs. ESCs are embryonic cells derived typically from fetal tissue, whereas iPS cells are dedifferentiated from adult tissue, thus avoiding many of the ethical and legal challenges imposed by research with ESCs. However, oncogenic and lingering politico-legal concerns with introducing dedifferentiated ESCs or iPS cells into healthy tissue necessitate the development, isolation, and expansion of multi- but not pluripotent stem cell lines.¹⁴ To date, the most advantageous and widely utilized from any perspective are MSCs, which can further differentiate into cartilage, tendon, muscle, and bony tissue.^7,15,16

MSCs are defined by their ability to demonstrate in vitro differentiation into osteoblasts, adipocytes, or chondroblasts, adhere to plastic, express CD105, CD73, and CD90, and not express CD43, CD23, CD14 or CD11b, CD79 or CD19, or HLA-DR.¹⁷ Porada and Almeida-Porada¹⁸ have outlined 6 reasons highlighting the advantages of MSCs: 1) ease of isolation, 2) high differentiation capabilities, 3) strong colony expansion without differentiation loss, 4) immunosuppression following transplantation, 5) powerful anti-inflammatory properties, and 6) their ability to localize to damaged tissue. The anti-inflammatory properties of MSCs are particularly important as they promote allo- and xenotransplantation from donor tissues.^19,20 MSCs can be isolated from numerous sources, including but not limited to bone marrow, periosteum, adipocyte, and muscle.^21-23 Interestingly, the source tissue used to isolate MSCs can affect differentiation capabilities, colony size, and growth rate (Table 2).²⁴ Advantages of a-MSCs include high prevalence and ease of harvest; however, several animal studies have shown inferior results when compared to bm-MSCs.^25-27 More research is needed to determine the ideal source material for MSCs, which will likely depend in part on the procedure for which they are employed.²⁷

Following harvesting, isolation, and expansion, MSC delivery methods for treatments typically consist of either cell-based or tissue engineering approaches. Cell-based techniques involve the injection of MSCs into damaged tissues. Purely cell-based therapy has shown success in limited clinical trials involving knee osteoarthritis, cartilage repair, and meniscal repair.^28-30 However, additional studies with longer follow-up are required to validate these preliminary findings. Tissue engineering approaches involve the construction of a 3-dimensional scaffold seeded with MSCs that is later surgically implanted. While promising in theory, limited and often conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of tissue-engineered MSC implantation.^31-32 Suboptimal scaffold vascularity is a major limitation to scaffold design, which may be alleviated in part with the advent of 3-dimensional printing and the ability to more precisely alter scaffold architecture.^14,33 Additional limitations include ensuring MSC purity and differentiation potential following harvesting and expansion. At present, the use of tissue engineering with MSCs is promising but it remains a nascent technology with additional preclinical studies required to confirm implant efficacy and safety.

Clinical Entities

Osteoarthritis

MSC therapies have emerged as promising treatment strategies in the setting of early osteoarthritis (OA). In addition to their regenerative potential, MSCs demonstrate potent anti-inflammatory properties, increasing their attractiveness as biologic agents in the setting of OA.³⁴ Over the past decade, multiple human trials have been published demonstrating the efficacy of MSC injections into patients with OA.^35,36 In a study evaluating a-MSC injection into elderly patients (age >65 years) with knee OA, Koh and colleagues²⁹ found that 88% demonstrated improved cartilage status at 2-year follow-up, while no patient underwent a total knee arthroplasty during this time period. In another study investigating patients with unicompartmental knee OA with varus alignment undergoing high tibial osteotomy and microfracture, Wong and colleagues³⁷ reported improved clinical, patient-reported, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based outcomes in a group receiving a preoperative MSC injection compared to a control group. Further, in a recent randomized control trial of patients with knee osteoarthritis, Vega and colleagues³⁸ reported improved cartilage and quality of life outcomes at 1 year following MSC injection compared to a control group receiving a hyaluronic acid injection. In addition to knee OA, studies have also reported improvement in ankle OA following MSC injection.³⁹ While promising, many of the preliminary clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of MSC therapies in the treatment of OA are hindered by small patient populations and short-term follow-up. Additional large-scale, randomized studies are required and many are ongoing presently in hopes of validating these preliminary findings.³⁶

Tendinopathy

The quality of repaired tissue in primary tendon-to-tendon and tendon-to-bone healing has long been a topic of great interest.⁴⁰ The healing potential of tendons is inferior to that of other bony and connective tissues,⁴¹ with tendon healing typically resulting in a biomechanically and histologically inferior structure to the native tissue.⁴² As such, this has been a particularly salient opportunity for stem cell use with hopes of recapitulating a more normal tendon or tendon enthesis following injury. In addition to the acute injury, there is great interest in the application of stem cells to chronic states of injury such as tendinopathy.

In equine models, the effect of autologous bm-MSCs treatment on tendinopathy of the superficial digital flexor tendon has been studied. Godwin and colleagues⁴³ evaluated 141 race horses with spontaneous superficial digital flexor tendinopathy treated in this manner, and reported a reinjury percentage in these treated horses of just 27.4%, which compared favorably to historical controls and alternative therapeutics. Machova Urdzikova and colleagues⁴⁴ injected MSCs at Achilles tendinopathy locations to augment nonoperative healing in 40 rats, and identified more native histological organization and improved vascularization in comparison to control rat specimens. Oshita and colleagues⁴⁵ reported histologic improvement of tendinopathy findings in 8 rats receiving a-MSCs at the location of induced Achilles tendinopathy that was significantly superior to a control cohort. Bm-MSCs were used by Yuksel and colleagues⁴⁶ in comparison with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures created surgically in rat models. They demonstrated successful effects with its use in terms of recovery for the tendon’s histopathologic, immunohistochemical, and biomechanical properties, related to significantly greater levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines. However, these aforementioned findings have not been uniform across the literature—other authors have reported findings that MSC transplantation alone did not repair Achilles tendon injury with such high levels of success.⁴⁷

Human treatment of tendinopathies with stem cells has been scarcely studied to date. Pascual-Garrido and colleagues⁴⁸ evaluated 8 patients with refractory patellar tendinopathy treated with injection of autologous bm-MSCs and reported successful results at 2- to 5-year follow-up, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures for 100% of patients. Seven of 8 (87.5%) noted that they would undergo the procedure again.

Articular Cartilage Injury

Chondral injury is a particularly important subject given the limited potential of chondrocytes to replicate or migrate to the site of pathology.⁴⁹ Stem cell use in this setting assists with programmed growth factor release and alteration of the anatomic microenvironment to facilitate regeneration and repair of the chondral surface. Autologous stem cell use through microfracture provides a perforation into the bone marrow and a subsequent fibrin clot formation containing platelets, growth factors, vascular elements, and MSCs.⁵⁰ A similar concept to PRP is currently being explored with bm-MSCs. Isolated bm-MSCs are commonly referred to as bone marrow aspirate or bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Commercially available systems are now available to aid in the harvesting and implementation of BMAC. One of the more promising avenues for BMAC implementation is in articular cartilage repair or regeneration due to chondrogenic potential of BMAC when used in isolation or when combined with microfracture, chondrocyte transfer, or collagen scaffolds.^19,51 Synovial-derived stem cells as an additional source for stem cell use has demonstrated excellent chondrogenic potential in animal studies with full-thickness lesion healing and native-appearing cartilage histologically.⁵² Incorporation of a-MSCs into scaffolds for surgical implantation has demonstrated success in repairing full-thickness chondral defects with continuous joint surface and extracellular proteins, surface markers, and gene products similar to the native cartilage in animal models.^53,54 In light of the promising basic science and animal studies, clinical studies have begun to emerge.^55-57

Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ found MRI and histologic evidence of full-thickness chondral repair and increased integration with neighboring cartilage when BMAC was concurrently used at the time of microfracture in an equine model. Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ also demonstrated greater healing in equine models with acute full-thickness cartilage defects treated by microfracture with MSCs than without delivery of MSCs. Kim and colleagues^59,60 similarly reported superiority in clinical outcomes for patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus treated with marrow stimulation and MSC injection than by the former in isolation.

In humans, stem cell use for chondral repair has additionally proven promising. A systematic review of the literature suggested good to excellent overall outcomes for the treatment of moderate focal chondral defects with BMAC with or without scaffolds and microfracture with inclusion of 8 total publications.⁶¹ This review included Gobbi and colleagues,⁶² who prospectively treated 15 patients with a mean focal chondral defect size of 9.2 cm² about the knee. Use of BMAC covered with a collagen I/III matrix produced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores and MRI demonstrated complete hyaline-like cartilage coverage in 80%, with second-look arthroscopy demonstrating normal to nearly normal tissue. Gobbi and colleagues⁵⁵ also found evidence for superiority of chondral defects treated with BMAC compared to matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for patellofemoral lesions in 37 patients (MRI showed complete filling of defects in 81% of BMAC-treated patients vs 76% of MACI-treated patients).

Meniscal Repair

Clinical application of MSCs in the treatment of meniscal pathology is evolving as well. ASCs have been added to modify the biomechanical environment of avascular zone meniscal tears at the time of suture repair in a rabbit, and have demonstrated increased healing rates in small and larger lesions, although the effect lessens with delay in repair.⁶³ Angele and colleagues⁶⁴ treated meniscal defects in a rabbit model with scaffolds with bm-MSCs compared with empty scaffolds or control cohorts and found a higher proportion of menisci with healed meniscus-like fibrocartilage when MSCs were utilized.

In humans, Vangsness and colleagues³⁰ treated knees with partial medial meniscectomy with allogeneic stem cells and reported an increase in meniscal volume and decrease in pain in those patients when compared to a cohort of knees treated with hyaluronic acid. Despite promising early results, additional clinical studies are necessary to determine the external validity and broad applicability of stem cell use in meniscal repair.

Rotator Cuff Repair

The number of local resident stem cells at the site of rotator cuff tear has been shown to decrease with tear size, chronicity, and degree of fatty infiltration, suggesting that those with the greatest need for a good reparative environment are those least equipped to heal.⁶⁵ The need for improvement in this domain is related to the still relatively high re-tear rate after rotator cuff repair despite improvements in instrumentation and surgical technique.⁶⁶ The native fibrocartilaginous transition zone between the humerus and the rotator cuff becomes a fibrovascular scar tissue after rupture and repair with poorer material properties than the native tissue.⁶⁷ Thus, a-MSCs have been evaluated in this setting to determine if the biomechanical and histological properties of the repair may improve.⁶⁸

In rat models, Valencia Mora and colleagues⁶⁸ reported on the application of a-MSCs in a rat rotator cuff repair model compared to an untreated group. They found no differences between those treated rats and those without a-MSCs use in terms of biomechanical properties of the tendon-to-bone healing, but those with stem cell use had less inflammation shown histologically (diminished presence of edema and neutrophils) at 2- and 4-week time points, which the authors suggested may lead to a more elastic repair and less scar at the bone-tendon healing site. Oh and colleagues¹ evaluated the use of a-MSCs in a rabbit subscapularis tear model, and reported significantly reduced fatty infiltration at the site of chronic rotator cuff tear after repair with its application at the repair site; while the load-to-failure was higher in those rabbits with ASCs administration, it was short of reaching statistical significance. Yokoya and colleagues⁶⁹ demonstrated regeneration of rotator cuff tendon-to-bone insertional site anatomy and in the belly of the cuff tendon in a rabbit model with MSCs applied at the operative site. However, Gulotta and colleagues⁷⁰ did not see the same improvement in their similar study in the rat model; these authors failed to see improvement in structure, strength, or composition of the tendinous attachment site despite addition of MSCs.

Clinical studies on augmented rotator cuff repair have also found mixed results. MSCs for this purpose have been cultivated from arthroscopic bone marrow aspiration of the proximal humerus⁷¹ and subacromial bursa⁷² with successful and reproducibly high concentrations of stem cells. Hernigou and colleagues⁷³ found a significant improvement in rate of healing (87% intact cuffs vs 44% in the control group) and repair surface tendon integrity (via ultrasound and MRI) for patients at a minimum of 10 years after rotator cuff repair with MSC injection at the time of surgery. The authors found a direct correlation in these outcomes with the number of MSCs injected at the time of repair. Ellera Gomes and colleagues⁷⁴ injected bm-MSCs obtained from the iliac crest into the tendinous repair site in 14 consecutive patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears treated by transosseous sutures via a mini-open approach. MRI demonstrated integrity of the repair site in all patients at more than 1-year follow-up.

Achilles Tendon Repair

The goal with stem cell use in Achilles repair is to accelerate the healing and rehabilitation. Several animal studies have demonstrated improved mechanical properties and collagen composition of tendon repairs augmented with stem cells, including Achilles tendon repair in a rat model. Adams and colleagues⁷⁵ compared suture alone (36 tendons) to suture plus stem cell concentrate injection (36 tendons) and stem cell loaded suture (36 tendons) in Achilles tendon repair with rat models. The suture-alone cohort had lower ultimate failure loads at 14 days after surgery, indicating biomechanical superiority with stem cell augmentation means. Transplantation of hypoxic MSCs at the time of Achilles tendon repair may be a promising option for superior biomechanical failure loads and histologic findings as per recent rat model findings by Huang and colleagues.⁷⁶ Yao and colleagues⁷⁷ demonstrated increased strength of suture repair for Achilles repair in rat models at early time points when using MSC-coated suture in comparison to standard suture, and suggested that the addition of stem cells may improve early mechanical properties during the tendon repair process. A-MSC addition to PRP has provided significantly increased tensile strength to rabbit models with Achilles tendon repair as well.⁷⁸

In evaluation of stem cell use for this purpose with humans, Stein and colleagues⁷⁹ reviewed 28 sports-related Achilles tendon ruptures in 27 patients treated with open repair and BMAC injection. At a mean follow-up of 29.7 months, the authors reported no re-ruptures, with 92% return to sport at 5.9 months, and excellent clinical outcomes. This small cohort study found no adverse outcomes related to the BMAC addition, and thus proposed further study of the efficacy of stem cell treatment for Achilles tendon repair.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Bm-MSCs genetically modified with bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) have shown great promise in improvement of the formation of mechanically sound tendon-bone interface in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.⁸⁰ Similar to the other surgical procedures mentioned in this review, animal studies have successfully evaluated the augmentation of osteointegration of tendon to bone in the setting of ACL reconstruction. Jang and colleagues³ investigated the use of nonautologous transplantation of human umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs in a rabbit ACL reconstruction model. The authors demonstrated a lack of immune rejection, and enhanced tendon-bone healing with broad fibrocartilage formation at the transition zone (similar to the native ACL) and decreased femoral and tibial tunnel widening as compared to a control cohort at 12-weeks after surgery. In a rat model, Kanaya and colleagues⁸¹ reported improved histological scores and slight improvements in biomechanical integrity of partially transected rat ACLs treated with intra-articular MSC injection. Stem cell use in the form of suture-supporting scaffolds seeded with MSCs has been evaluated in a total ACL transection rabbit model; the authors of this report demonstrated total ACL regeneration in one-third of samples treated with this augmentation option, in comparison to complete failure in all suture and scaffold alone groups.⁸²

The use of autologous MSCs in ACL healing remains limited to preclinical research and small case series of patients. One human trial by Silva and colleagues⁸³ evaluated the graft-to-bone site of healing in ACL reconstruction for 20 patients who received an intraoperative infiltration of their graft with adult bm-MSCs. MRI and histologic analysis showed no difference in comparison to control groups, but the authors’ conclusion proposed that the number of stem cells injected might have been too minimal to show a clinical effect.

Other Applications

Although outside the scope of this article, stem cells have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of a number of osseous clinical entities. This includes the treatment of fracture nonunion, augmentation of spinal fusion, and assistance in the treatment of osteonecrosis.⁸⁴

Summary

As a scientific community, our understanding of the use of stem cells, their nuances, and their indications has expanded dramatically over the last several years. Stem cell treatment has particularly infiltrated the world of operative and nonoperative sports medicine, given in part the active patient population seeking greater levels of improvement.⁸⁵ Stem cell therapy offers a potentially effective therapy for a multitude of pathologies because of these cells’ anti-inflammatory, immunoregulatory, angiogenic, and paracrine effects.⁸⁶ It thus remains a very dynamic option in the study of musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. While the potential exists for stem cell use in daily surgery practices, it is still premature to predict whether this can be expected.

The ideal stem cell sources (including allogeneic or autologous), preparation, cell number, timing, and means of application continue to be evaluated, as well as those advantageous pathologies that can benefit from the technology. In order to better answer these pertinent questions, we need to make sure we have a safe, economic, and ethically acceptable means for stem cell translational research efforts. More high-level studies with standardized protocols need to be performed. It is necessary to improve national and international collaboration in research, as well as collaboration with governing bodies, to attempt to further scientific advancement in this field of research.⁴⁹ Further study on embryonic stem cell use may be valuable as well, pending governmental approval. Finally, more dedicated research efforts must be placed on the utility of adjuncts with stem cell use, including PRP and scaffolds, which may increase protection, nutritional support, and mechanical stimulation of the administered stem cells.

Biologic use in orthopedics is a continuously evolving field that complements technical, anatomic, and biomechanical advancements in orthopedics. Biologic agents are receiving increasing attention for their use in augmenting healing of muscles, tendons, ligaments, and osseous structures. As biologic augmentation strategies become increasingly utilized in bony and soft-tissue injuries, research on stem cell use in orthopedics continues to increase. Stem cell-based therapies for the repair or regeneration of muscle and tendon represent a promising technology going forward for numerous diseases.¹

Stem cells by definition are undifferentiated cells that have 4 main characteristics: (1) mobilization during angiogenesis, (2) differentiation into specialized cell types, (3) proliferation and regeneration, and (4) release of immune regulators and growth factors.² Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have garnered the most attention in the field of surgery due to their ability to differentiate into the tissues of interest for the surgeon.³ This includes both bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (bm-MSCs) and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (a-MSCs). These multipotent stem cells in adults originate from mesenchymal tissues, including bone marrow, tendon, adipose, and muscle tissue.⁴ They are attractive for clinical use because of their multipotent potential and relative ease of growth in culture.⁵ They also exert a paracrine effect to modulate and control inflammation, stimulate endogenous cell repair and proliferation, inhibit apoptosis, and improve blood flow through secretion of chemokines, cytokines, and growth factors.^6,7

Questions exist regarding the best way to administer stem cells, whether systematic administration is possible for these cells to localize to the tissue in need, or more likely if direct application to the pathologic area is necessary.^8,9 A number of sources, purification process, and modes of delivery are available, but the most effective means of preparation and administration are still under investigation. The goal of this review is to illustrate the current state of knowledge surrounding stem cell therapy in orthopedics with a focus on osteoarthritis, tendinopathy, articular cartilage, and enhancement of surgical procedures.

Important Considerations

Common stem cell isolates include embryonic, induced pluripotent, and mesenchymal formulations (Table 1). MSCs can be obtained from multiple sites, including but not limited to the adult bone marrow, adipose, muscular, or tendinous tissues, and their use has been highlighted in the study of numerous orthopedic and nonorthopedic pathologies over the course of the last decade. Research on the use of embryonic stem cells in medical therapy with human implications has received substantial attention, with many ethical concerns by those opposed, and the existence of a potential risk of malignant alterations.^8,10 Amniotic-derived stem cells can be isolated from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, or the placenta and thus do not harbor the same social constraints as the aforementioned embryonic cells; however, they do not harbor the same magnitude of multi-differentiation potential, either.⁴

Adult MSCs are more locally available and easy to obtain for treatment when compared with embryonic and fetal stem cells, and the former has a lower immunogenicity, which allows allogeneic use.¹¹ Safety has been preliminarily demonstrated in use thus far; Centeno and colleagues¹² found no neoplastic tissue generation at the site of stem cell injection after 3 years postinjection for a cohort of patients who were treated with autologous bm-MSCs for various pathologies. Self-limited pain and swelling are the most commonly reported adverse events after use.¹³ However, long-term data are lacking in many instances to definitively suggest the absence of possible complications.

Basic Science

Stem cell research encompasses a wide range of rapidly developing treatment strategies that are applicable to virtually every field of medicine. In general, stem cells can be classified as embryonic stem cells (ESCs), induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, or adult-derived MSCs. ESCs are embryonic cells derived typically from fetal tissue, whereas iPS cells are dedifferentiated from adult tissue, thus avoiding many of the ethical and legal challenges imposed by research with ESCs. However, oncogenic and lingering politico-legal concerns with introducing dedifferentiated ESCs or iPS cells into healthy tissue necessitate the development, isolation, and expansion of multi- but not pluripotent stem cell lines.¹⁴ To date, the most advantageous and widely utilized from any perspective are MSCs, which can further differentiate into cartilage, tendon, muscle, and bony tissue.^7,15,16

MSCs are defined by their ability to demonstrate in vitro differentiation into osteoblasts, adipocytes, or chondroblasts, adhere to plastic, express CD105, CD73, and CD90, and not express CD43, CD23, CD14 or CD11b, CD79 or CD19, or HLA-DR.¹⁷ Porada and Almeida-Porada¹⁸ have outlined 6 reasons highlighting the advantages of MSCs: 1) ease of isolation, 2) high differentiation capabilities, 3) strong colony expansion without differentiation loss, 4) immunosuppression following transplantation, 5) powerful anti-inflammatory properties, and 6) their ability to localize to damaged tissue. The anti-inflammatory properties of MSCs are particularly important as they promote allo- and xenotransplantation from donor tissues.^19,20 MSCs can be isolated from numerous sources, including but not limited to bone marrow, periosteum, adipocyte, and muscle.^21-23 Interestingly, the source tissue used to isolate MSCs can affect differentiation capabilities, colony size, and growth rate (Table 2).²⁴ Advantages of a-MSCs include high prevalence and ease of harvest; however, several animal studies have shown inferior results when compared to bm-MSCs.^25-27 More research is needed to determine the ideal source material for MSCs, which will likely depend in part on the procedure for which they are employed.²⁷

Following harvesting, isolation, and expansion, MSC delivery methods for treatments typically consist of either cell-based or tissue engineering approaches. Cell-based techniques involve the injection of MSCs into damaged tissues. Purely cell-based therapy has shown success in limited clinical trials involving knee osteoarthritis, cartilage repair, and meniscal repair.^28-30 However, additional studies with longer follow-up are required to validate these preliminary findings. Tissue engineering approaches involve the construction of a 3-dimensional scaffold seeded with MSCs that is later surgically implanted. While promising in theory, limited and often conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of tissue-engineered MSC implantation.^31-32 Suboptimal scaffold vascularity is a major limitation to scaffold design, which may be alleviated in part with the advent of 3-dimensional printing and the ability to more precisely alter scaffold architecture.^14,33 Additional limitations include ensuring MSC purity and differentiation potential following harvesting and expansion. At present, the use of tissue engineering with MSCs is promising but it remains a nascent technology with additional preclinical studies required to confirm implant efficacy and safety.

Clinical Entities

Osteoarthritis

MSC therapies have emerged as promising treatment strategies in the setting of early osteoarthritis (OA). In addition to their regenerative potential, MSCs demonstrate potent anti-inflammatory properties, increasing their attractiveness as biologic agents in the setting of OA.³⁴ Over the past decade, multiple human trials have been published demonstrating the efficacy of MSC injections into patients with OA.^35,36 In a study evaluating a-MSC injection into elderly patients (age >65 years) with knee OA, Koh and colleagues²⁹ found that 88% demonstrated improved cartilage status at 2-year follow-up, while no patient underwent a total knee arthroplasty during this time period. In another study investigating patients with unicompartmental knee OA with varus alignment undergoing high tibial osteotomy and microfracture, Wong and colleagues³⁷ reported improved clinical, patient-reported, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based outcomes in a group receiving a preoperative MSC injection compared to a control group. Further, in a recent randomized control trial of patients with knee osteoarthritis, Vega and colleagues³⁸ reported improved cartilage and quality of life outcomes at 1 year following MSC injection compared to a control group receiving a hyaluronic acid injection. In addition to knee OA, studies have also reported improvement in ankle OA following MSC injection.³⁹ While promising, many of the preliminary clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of MSC therapies in the treatment of OA are hindered by small patient populations and short-term follow-up. Additional large-scale, randomized studies are required and many are ongoing presently in hopes of validating these preliminary findings.³⁶

Tendinopathy

The quality of repaired tissue in primary tendon-to-tendon and tendon-to-bone healing has long been a topic of great interest.⁴⁰ The healing potential of tendons is inferior to that of other bony and connective tissues,⁴¹ with tendon healing typically resulting in a biomechanically and histologically inferior structure to the native tissue.⁴² As such, this has been a particularly salient opportunity for stem cell use with hopes of recapitulating a more normal tendon or tendon enthesis following injury. In addition to the acute injury, there is great interest in the application of stem cells to chronic states of injury such as tendinopathy.

In equine models, the effect of autologous bm-MSCs treatment on tendinopathy of the superficial digital flexor tendon has been studied. Godwin and colleagues⁴³ evaluated 141 race horses with spontaneous superficial digital flexor tendinopathy treated in this manner, and reported a reinjury percentage in these treated horses of just 27.4%, which compared favorably to historical controls and alternative therapeutics. Machova Urdzikova and colleagues⁴⁴ injected MSCs at Achilles tendinopathy locations to augment nonoperative healing in 40 rats, and identified more native histological organization and improved vascularization in comparison to control rat specimens. Oshita and colleagues⁴⁵ reported histologic improvement of tendinopathy findings in 8 rats receiving a-MSCs at the location of induced Achilles tendinopathy that was significantly superior to a control cohort. Bm-MSCs were used by Yuksel and colleagues⁴⁶ in comparison with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures created surgically in rat models. They demonstrated successful effects with its use in terms of recovery for the tendon’s histopathologic, immunohistochemical, and biomechanical properties, related to significantly greater levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines. However, these aforementioned findings have not been uniform across the literature—other authors have reported findings that MSC transplantation alone did not repair Achilles tendon injury with such high levels of success.⁴⁷

Human treatment of tendinopathies with stem cells has been scarcely studied to date. Pascual-Garrido and colleagues⁴⁸ evaluated 8 patients with refractory patellar tendinopathy treated with injection of autologous bm-MSCs and reported successful results at 2- to 5-year follow-up, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures for 100% of patients. Seven of 8 (87.5%) noted that they would undergo the procedure again.

Articular Cartilage Injury

Chondral injury is a particularly important subject given the limited potential of chondrocytes to replicate or migrate to the site of pathology.⁴⁹ Stem cell use in this setting assists with programmed growth factor release and alteration of the anatomic microenvironment to facilitate regeneration and repair of the chondral surface. Autologous stem cell use through microfracture provides a perforation into the bone marrow and a subsequent fibrin clot formation containing platelets, growth factors, vascular elements, and MSCs.⁵⁰ A similar concept to PRP is currently being explored with bm-MSCs. Isolated bm-MSCs are commonly referred to as bone marrow aspirate or bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Commercially available systems are now available to aid in the harvesting and implementation of BMAC. One of the more promising avenues for BMAC implementation is in articular cartilage repair or regeneration due to chondrogenic potential of BMAC when used in isolation or when combined with microfracture, chondrocyte transfer, or collagen scaffolds.^19,51 Synovial-derived stem cells as an additional source for stem cell use has demonstrated excellent chondrogenic potential in animal studies with full-thickness lesion healing and native-appearing cartilage histologically.⁵² Incorporation of a-MSCs into scaffolds for surgical implantation has demonstrated success in repairing full-thickness chondral defects with continuous joint surface and extracellular proteins, surface markers, and gene products similar to the native cartilage in animal models.^53,54 In light of the promising basic science and animal studies, clinical studies have begun to emerge.^55-57

Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ found MRI and histologic evidence of full-thickness chondral repair and increased integration with neighboring cartilage when BMAC was concurrently used at the time of microfracture in an equine model. Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ also demonstrated greater healing in equine models with acute full-thickness cartilage defects treated by microfracture with MSCs than without delivery of MSCs. Kim and colleagues^59,60 similarly reported superiority in clinical outcomes for patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus treated with marrow stimulation and MSC injection than by the former in isolation.

In humans, stem cell use for chondral repair has additionally proven promising. A systematic review of the literature suggested good to excellent overall outcomes for the treatment of moderate focal chondral defects with BMAC with or without scaffolds and microfracture with inclusion of 8 total publications.⁶¹ This review included Gobbi and colleagues,⁶² who prospectively treated 15 patients with a mean focal chondral defect size of 9.2 cm² about the knee. Use of BMAC covered with a collagen I/III matrix produced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores and MRI demonstrated complete hyaline-like cartilage coverage in 80%, with second-look arthroscopy demonstrating normal to nearly normal tissue. Gobbi and colleagues⁵⁵ also found evidence for superiority of chondral defects treated with BMAC compared to matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for patellofemoral lesions in 37 patients (MRI showed complete filling of defects in 81% of BMAC-treated patients vs 76% of MACI-treated patients).

Meniscal Repair

Clinical application of MSCs in the treatment of meniscal pathology is evolving as well. ASCs have been added to modify the biomechanical environment of avascular zone meniscal tears at the time of suture repair in a rabbit, and have demonstrated increased healing rates in small and larger lesions, although the effect lessens with delay in repair.⁶³ Angele and colleagues⁶⁴ treated meniscal defects in a rabbit model with scaffolds with bm-MSCs compared with empty scaffolds or control cohorts and found a higher proportion of menisci with healed meniscus-like fibrocartilage when MSCs were utilized.

In humans, Vangsness and colleagues³⁰ treated knees with partial medial meniscectomy with allogeneic stem cells and reported an increase in meniscal volume and decrease in pain in those patients when compared to a cohort of knees treated with hyaluronic acid. Despite promising early results, additional clinical studies are necessary to determine the external validity and broad applicability of stem cell use in meniscal repair.

Rotator Cuff Repair

The number of local resident stem cells at the site of rotator cuff tear has been shown to decrease with tear size, chronicity, and degree of fatty infiltration, suggesting that those with the greatest need for a good reparative environment are those least equipped to heal.⁶⁵ The need for improvement in this domain is related to the still relatively high re-tear rate after rotator cuff repair despite improvements in instrumentation and surgical technique.⁶⁶ The native fibrocartilaginous transition zone between the humerus and the rotator cuff becomes a fibrovascular scar tissue after rupture and repair with poorer material properties than the native tissue.⁶⁷ Thus, a-MSCs have been evaluated in this setting to determine if the biomechanical and histological properties of the repair may improve.⁶⁸

In rat models, Valencia Mora and colleagues⁶⁸ reported on the application of a-MSCs in a rat rotator cuff repair model compared to an untreated group. They found no differences between those treated rats and those without a-MSCs use in terms of biomechanical properties of the tendon-to-bone healing, but those with stem cell use had less inflammation shown histologically (diminished presence of edema and neutrophils) at 2- and 4-week time points, which the authors suggested may lead to a more elastic repair and less scar at the bone-tendon healing site. Oh and colleagues¹ evaluated the use of a-MSCs in a rabbit subscapularis tear model, and reported significantly reduced fatty infiltration at the site of chronic rotator cuff tear after repair with its application at the repair site; while the load-to-failure was higher in those rabbits with ASCs administration, it was short of reaching statistical significance. Yokoya and colleagues⁶⁹ demonstrated regeneration of rotator cuff tendon-to-bone insertional site anatomy and in the belly of the cuff tendon in a rabbit model with MSCs applied at the operative site. However, Gulotta and colleagues⁷⁰ did not see the same improvement in their similar study in the rat model; these authors failed to see improvement in structure, strength, or composition of the tendinous attachment site despite addition of MSCs.

Clinical studies on augmented rotator cuff repair have also found mixed results. MSCs for this purpose have been cultivated from arthroscopic bone marrow aspiration of the proximal humerus⁷¹ and subacromial bursa⁷² with successful and reproducibly high concentrations of stem cells. Hernigou and colleagues⁷³ found a significant improvement in rate of healing (87% intact cuffs vs 44% in the control group) and repair surface tendon integrity (via ultrasound and MRI) for patients at a minimum of 10 years after rotator cuff repair with MSC injection at the time of surgery. The authors found a direct correlation in these outcomes with the number of MSCs injected at the time of repair. Ellera Gomes and colleagues⁷⁴ injected bm-MSCs obtained from the iliac crest into the tendinous repair site in 14 consecutive patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears treated by transosseous sutures via a mini-open approach. MRI demonstrated integrity of the repair site in all patients at more than 1-year follow-up.

Achilles Tendon Repair

The goal with stem cell use in Achilles repair is to accelerate the healing and rehabilitation. Several animal studies have demonstrated improved mechanical properties and collagen composition of tendon repairs augmented with stem cells, including Achilles tendon repair in a rat model. Adams and colleagues⁷⁵ compared suture alone (36 tendons) to suture plus stem cell concentrate injection (36 tendons) and stem cell loaded suture (36 tendons) in Achilles tendon repair with rat models. The suture-alone cohort had lower ultimate failure loads at 14 days after surgery, indicating biomechanical superiority with stem cell augmentation means. Transplantation of hypoxic MSCs at the time of Achilles tendon repair may be a promising option for superior biomechanical failure loads and histologic findings as per recent rat model findings by Huang and colleagues.⁷⁶ Yao and colleagues⁷⁷ demonstrated increased strength of suture repair for Achilles repair in rat models at early time points when using MSC-coated suture in comparison to standard suture, and suggested that the addition of stem cells may improve early mechanical properties during the tendon repair process. A-MSC addition to PRP has provided significantly increased tensile strength to rabbit models with Achilles tendon repair as well.⁷⁸

In evaluation of stem cell use for this purpose with humans, Stein and colleagues⁷⁹ reviewed 28 sports-related Achilles tendon ruptures in 27 patients treated with open repair and BMAC injection. At a mean follow-up of 29.7 months, the authors reported no re-ruptures, with 92% return to sport at 5.9 months, and excellent clinical outcomes. This small cohort study found no adverse outcomes related to the BMAC addition, and thus proposed further study of the efficacy of stem cell treatment for Achilles tendon repair.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Bm-MSCs genetically modified with bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) have shown great promise in improvement of the formation of mechanically sound tendon-bone interface in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.⁸⁰ Similar to the other surgical procedures mentioned in this review, animal studies have successfully evaluated the augmentation of osteointegration of tendon to bone in the setting of ACL reconstruction. Jang and colleagues³ investigated the use of nonautologous transplantation of human umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs in a rabbit ACL reconstruction model. The authors demonstrated a lack of immune rejection, and enhanced tendon-bone healing with broad fibrocartilage formation at the transition zone (similar to the native ACL) and decreased femoral and tibial tunnel widening as compared to a control cohort at 12-weeks after surgery. In a rat model, Kanaya and colleagues⁸¹ reported improved histological scores and slight improvements in biomechanical integrity of partially transected rat ACLs treated with intra-articular MSC injection. Stem cell use in the form of suture-supporting scaffolds seeded with MSCs has been evaluated in a total ACL transection rabbit model; the authors of this report demonstrated total ACL regeneration in one-third of samples treated with this augmentation option, in comparison to complete failure in all suture and scaffold alone groups.⁸²

The use of autologous MSCs in ACL healing remains limited to preclinical research and small case series of patients. One human trial by Silva and colleagues⁸³ evaluated the graft-to-bone site of healing in ACL reconstruction for 20 patients who received an intraoperative infiltration of their graft with adult bm-MSCs. MRI and histologic analysis showed no difference in comparison to control groups, but the authors’ conclusion proposed that the number of stem cells injected might have been too minimal to show a clinical effect.

Other Applications

Although outside the scope of this article, stem cells have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of a number of osseous clinical entities. This includes the treatment of fracture nonunion, augmentation of spinal fusion, and assistance in the treatment of osteonecrosis.⁸⁴

Summary

As a scientific community, our understanding of the use of stem cells, their nuances, and their indications has expanded dramatically over the last several years. Stem cell treatment has particularly infiltrated the world of operative and nonoperative sports medicine, given in part the active patient population seeking greater levels of improvement.⁸⁵ Stem cell therapy offers a potentially effective therapy for a multitude of pathologies because of these cells’ anti-inflammatory, immunoregulatory, angiogenic, and paracrine effects.⁸⁶ It thus remains a very dynamic option in the study of musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. While the potential exists for stem cell use in daily surgery practices, it is still premature to predict whether this can be expected.

The ideal stem cell sources (including allogeneic or autologous), preparation, cell number, timing, and means of application continue to be evaluated, as well as those advantageous pathologies that can benefit from the technology. In order to better answer these pertinent questions, we need to make sure we have a safe, economic, and ethically acceptable means for stem cell translational research efforts. More high-level studies with standardized protocols need to be performed. It is necessary to improve national and international collaboration in research, as well as collaboration with governing bodies, to attempt to further scientific advancement in this field of research.⁴⁹ Further study on embryonic stem cell use may be valuable as well, pending governmental approval. Finally, more dedicated research efforts must be placed on the utility of adjuncts with stem cell use, including PRP and scaffolds, which may increase protection, nutritional support, and mechanical stimulation of the administered stem cells.

Biologic use in orthopedics is a continuously evolving field that complements technical, anatomic, and biomechanical advancements in orthopedics. Biologic agents are receiving increasing attention for their use in augmenting healing of muscles, tendons, ligaments, and osseous structures. As biologic augmentation strategies become increasingly utilized in bony and soft-tissue injuries, research on stem cell use in orthopedics continues to increase. Stem cell-based therapies for the repair or regeneration of muscle and tendon represent a promising technology going forward for numerous diseases.¹

Stem cells by definition are undifferentiated cells that have 4 main characteristics: (1) mobilization during angiogenesis, (2) differentiation into specialized cell types, (3) proliferation and regeneration, and (4) release of immune regulators and growth factors.² Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have garnered the most attention in the field of surgery due to their ability to differentiate into the tissues of interest for the surgeon.³ This includes both bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (bm-MSCs) and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (a-MSCs). These multipotent stem cells in adults originate from mesenchymal tissues, including bone marrow, tendon, adipose, and muscle tissue.⁴ They are attractive for clinical use because of their multipotent potential and relative ease of growth in culture.⁵ They also exert a paracrine effect to modulate and control inflammation, stimulate endogenous cell repair and proliferation, inhibit apoptosis, and improve blood flow through secretion of chemokines, cytokines, and growth factors.^6,7

Questions exist regarding the best way to administer stem cells, whether systematic administration is possible for these cells to localize to the tissue in need, or more likely if direct application to the pathologic area is necessary.^8,9 A number of sources, purification process, and modes of delivery are available, but the most effective means of preparation and administration are still under investigation. The goal of this review is to illustrate the current state of knowledge surrounding stem cell therapy in orthopedics with a focus on osteoarthritis, tendinopathy, articular cartilage, and enhancement of surgical procedures.

Important Considerations

Common stem cell isolates include embryonic, induced pluripotent, and mesenchymal formulations (Table 1). MSCs can be obtained from multiple sites, including but not limited to the adult bone marrow, adipose, muscular, or tendinous tissues, and their use has been highlighted in the study of numerous orthopedic and nonorthopedic pathologies over the course of the last decade. Research on the use of embryonic stem cells in medical therapy with human implications has received substantial attention, with many ethical concerns by those opposed, and the existence of a potential risk of malignant alterations.^8,10 Amniotic-derived stem cells can be isolated from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, or the placenta and thus do not harbor the same social constraints as the aforementioned embryonic cells; however, they do not harbor the same magnitude of multi-differentiation potential, either.⁴

Adult MSCs are more locally available and easy to obtain for treatment when compared with embryonic and fetal stem cells, and the former has a lower immunogenicity, which allows allogeneic use.¹¹ Safety has been preliminarily demonstrated in use thus far; Centeno and colleagues¹² found no neoplastic tissue generation at the site of stem cell injection after 3 years postinjection for a cohort of patients who were treated with autologous bm-MSCs for various pathologies. Self-limited pain and swelling are the most commonly reported adverse events after use.¹³ However, long-term data are lacking in many instances to definitively suggest the absence of possible complications.

Basic Science

Stem cell research encompasses a wide range of rapidly developing treatment strategies that are applicable to virtually every field of medicine. In general, stem cells can be classified as embryonic stem cells (ESCs), induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, or adult-derived MSCs. ESCs are embryonic cells derived typically from fetal tissue, whereas iPS cells are dedifferentiated from adult tissue, thus avoiding many of the ethical and legal challenges imposed by research with ESCs. However, oncogenic and lingering politico-legal concerns with introducing dedifferentiated ESCs or iPS cells into healthy tissue necessitate the development, isolation, and expansion of multi- but not pluripotent stem cell lines.¹⁴ To date, the most advantageous and widely utilized from any perspective are MSCs, which can further differentiate into cartilage, tendon, muscle, and bony tissue.^7,15,16

MSCs are defined by their ability to demonstrate in vitro differentiation into osteoblasts, adipocytes, or chondroblasts, adhere to plastic, express CD105, CD73, and CD90, and not express CD43, CD23, CD14 or CD11b, CD79 or CD19, or HLA-DR.¹⁷ Porada and Almeida-Porada¹⁸ have outlined 6 reasons highlighting the advantages of MSCs: 1) ease of isolation, 2) high differentiation capabilities, 3) strong colony expansion without differentiation loss, 4) immunosuppression following transplantation, 5) powerful anti-inflammatory properties, and 6) their ability to localize to damaged tissue. The anti-inflammatory properties of MSCs are particularly important as they promote allo- and xenotransplantation from donor tissues.^19,20 MSCs can be isolated from numerous sources, including but not limited to bone marrow, periosteum, adipocyte, and muscle.^21-23 Interestingly, the source tissue used to isolate MSCs can affect differentiation capabilities, colony size, and growth rate (Table 2).²⁴ Advantages of a-MSCs include high prevalence and ease of harvest; however, several animal studies have shown inferior results when compared to bm-MSCs.^25-27 More research is needed to determine the ideal source material for MSCs, which will likely depend in part on the procedure for which they are employed.²⁷

Following harvesting, isolation, and expansion, MSC delivery methods for treatments typically consist of either cell-based or tissue engineering approaches. Cell-based techniques involve the injection of MSCs into damaged tissues. Purely cell-based therapy has shown success in limited clinical trials involving knee osteoarthritis, cartilage repair, and meniscal repair.^28-30 However, additional studies with longer follow-up are required to validate these preliminary findings. Tissue engineering approaches involve the construction of a 3-dimensional scaffold seeded with MSCs that is later surgically implanted. While promising in theory, limited and often conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of tissue-engineered MSC implantation.^31-32 Suboptimal scaffold vascularity is a major limitation to scaffold design, which may be alleviated in part with the advent of 3-dimensional printing and the ability to more precisely alter scaffold architecture.^14,33 Additional limitations include ensuring MSC purity and differentiation potential following harvesting and expansion. At present, the use of tissue engineering with MSCs is promising but it remains a nascent technology with additional preclinical studies required to confirm implant efficacy and safety.

Clinical Entities

Osteoarthritis

MSC therapies have emerged as promising treatment strategies in the setting of early osteoarthritis (OA). In addition to their regenerative potential, MSCs demonstrate potent anti-inflammatory properties, increasing their attractiveness as biologic agents in the setting of OA.³⁴ Over the past decade, multiple human trials have been published demonstrating the efficacy of MSC injections into patients with OA.^35,36 In a study evaluating a-MSC injection into elderly patients (age >65 years) with knee OA, Koh and colleagues²⁹ found that 88% demonstrated improved cartilage status at 2-year follow-up, while no patient underwent a total knee arthroplasty during this time period. In another study investigating patients with unicompartmental knee OA with varus alignment undergoing high tibial osteotomy and microfracture, Wong and colleagues³⁷ reported improved clinical, patient-reported, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based outcomes in a group receiving a preoperative MSC injection compared to a control group. Further, in a recent randomized control trial of patients with knee osteoarthritis, Vega and colleagues³⁸ reported improved cartilage and quality of life outcomes at 1 year following MSC injection compared to a control group receiving a hyaluronic acid injection. In addition to knee OA, studies have also reported improvement in ankle OA following MSC injection.³⁹ While promising, many of the preliminary clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of MSC therapies in the treatment of OA are hindered by small patient populations and short-term follow-up. Additional large-scale, randomized studies are required and many are ongoing presently in hopes of validating these preliminary findings.³⁶

Tendinopathy

The quality of repaired tissue in primary tendon-to-tendon and tendon-to-bone healing has long been a topic of great interest.⁴⁰ The healing potential of tendons is inferior to that of other bony and connective tissues,⁴¹ with tendon healing typically resulting in a biomechanically and histologically inferior structure to the native tissue.⁴² As such, this has been a particularly salient opportunity for stem cell use with hopes of recapitulating a more normal tendon or tendon enthesis following injury. In addition to the acute injury, there is great interest in the application of stem cells to chronic states of injury such as tendinopathy.

In equine models, the effect of autologous bm-MSCs treatment on tendinopathy of the superficial digital flexor tendon has been studied. Godwin and colleagues⁴³ evaluated 141 race horses with spontaneous superficial digital flexor tendinopathy treated in this manner, and reported a reinjury percentage in these treated horses of just 27.4%, which compared favorably to historical controls and alternative therapeutics. Machova Urdzikova and colleagues⁴⁴ injected MSCs at Achilles tendinopathy locations to augment nonoperative healing in 40 rats, and identified more native histological organization and improved vascularization in comparison to control rat specimens. Oshita and colleagues⁴⁵ reported histologic improvement of tendinopathy findings in 8 rats receiving a-MSCs at the location of induced Achilles tendinopathy that was significantly superior to a control cohort. Bm-MSCs were used by Yuksel and colleagues⁴⁶ in comparison with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures created surgically in rat models. They demonstrated successful effects with its use in terms of recovery for the tendon’s histopathologic, immunohistochemical, and biomechanical properties, related to significantly greater levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines. However, these aforementioned findings have not been uniform across the literature—other authors have reported findings that MSC transplantation alone did not repair Achilles tendon injury with such high levels of success.⁴⁷

Human treatment of tendinopathies with stem cells has been scarcely studied to date. Pascual-Garrido and colleagues⁴⁸ evaluated 8 patients with refractory patellar tendinopathy treated with injection of autologous bm-MSCs and reported successful results at 2- to 5-year follow-up, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures for 100% of patients. Seven of 8 (87.5%) noted that they would undergo the procedure again.

Articular Cartilage Injury

Chondral injury is a particularly important subject given the limited potential of chondrocytes to replicate or migrate to the site of pathology.⁴⁹ Stem cell use in this setting assists with programmed growth factor release and alteration of the anatomic microenvironment to facilitate regeneration and repair of the chondral surface. Autologous stem cell use through microfracture provides a perforation into the bone marrow and a subsequent fibrin clot formation containing platelets, growth factors, vascular elements, and MSCs.⁵⁰ A similar concept to PRP is currently being explored with bm-MSCs. Isolated bm-MSCs are commonly referred to as bone marrow aspirate or bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Commercially available systems are now available to aid in the harvesting and implementation of BMAC. One of the more promising avenues for BMAC implementation is in articular cartilage repair or regeneration due to chondrogenic potential of BMAC when used in isolation or when combined with microfracture, chondrocyte transfer, or collagen scaffolds.^19,51 Synovial-derived stem cells as an additional source for stem cell use has demonstrated excellent chondrogenic potential in animal studies with full-thickness lesion healing and native-appearing cartilage histologically.⁵² Incorporation of a-MSCs into scaffolds for surgical implantation has demonstrated success in repairing full-thickness chondral defects with continuous joint surface and extracellular proteins, surface markers, and gene products similar to the native cartilage in animal models.^53,54 In light of the promising basic science and animal studies, clinical studies have begun to emerge.^55-57

Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ found MRI and histologic evidence of full-thickness chondral repair and increased integration with neighboring cartilage when BMAC was concurrently used at the time of microfracture in an equine model. Fortier and colleagues⁵⁸ also demonstrated greater healing in equine models with acute full-thickness cartilage defects treated by microfracture with MSCs than without delivery of MSCs. Kim and colleagues^59,60 similarly reported superiority in clinical outcomes for patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus treated with marrow stimulation and MSC injection than by the former in isolation.

In humans, stem cell use for chondral repair has additionally proven promising. A systematic review of the literature suggested good to excellent overall outcomes for the treatment of moderate focal chondral defects with BMAC with or without scaffolds and microfracture with inclusion of 8 total publications.⁶¹ This review included Gobbi and colleagues,⁶² who prospectively treated 15 patients with a mean focal chondral defect size of 9.2 cm² about the knee. Use of BMAC covered with a collagen I/III matrix produced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores and MRI demonstrated complete hyaline-like cartilage coverage in 80%, with second-look arthroscopy demonstrating normal to nearly normal tissue. Gobbi and colleagues⁵⁵ also found evidence for superiority of chondral defects treated with BMAC compared to matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for patellofemoral lesions in 37 patients (MRI showed complete filling of defects in 81% of BMAC-treated patients vs 76% of MACI-treated patients).

Meniscal Repair

Clinical application of MSCs in the treatment of meniscal pathology is evolving as well. ASCs have been added to modify the biomechanical environment of avascular zone meniscal tears at the time of suture repair in a rabbit, and have demonstrated increased healing rates in small and larger lesions, although the effect lessens with delay in repair.⁶³ Angele and colleagues⁶⁴ treated meniscal defects in a rabbit model with scaffolds with bm-MSCs compared with empty scaffolds or control cohorts and found a higher proportion of menisci with healed meniscus-like fibrocartilage when MSCs were utilized.

In humans, Vangsness and colleagues³⁰ treated knees with partial medial meniscectomy with allogeneic stem cells and reported an increase in meniscal volume and decrease in pain in those patients when compared to a cohort of knees treated with hyaluronic acid. Despite promising early results, additional clinical studies are necessary to determine the external validity and broad applicability of stem cell use in meniscal repair.

Rotator Cuff Repair

The number of local resident stem cells at the site of rotator cuff tear has been shown to decrease with tear size, chronicity, and degree of fatty infiltration, suggesting that those with the greatest need for a good reparative environment are those least equipped to heal.⁶⁵ The need for improvement in this domain is related to the still relatively high re-tear rate after rotator cuff repair despite improvements in instrumentation and surgical technique.⁶⁶ The native fibrocartilaginous transition zone between the humerus and the rotator cuff becomes a fibrovascular scar tissue after rupture and repair with poorer material properties than the native tissue.⁶⁷ Thus, a-MSCs have been evaluated in this setting to determine if the biomechanical and histological properties of the repair may improve.⁶⁸

In rat models, Valencia Mora and colleagues⁶⁸ reported on the application of a-MSCs in a rat rotator cuff repair model compared to an untreated group. They found no differences between those treated rats and those without a-MSCs use in terms of biomechanical properties of the tendon-to-bone healing, but those with stem cell use had less inflammation shown histologically (diminished presence of edema and neutrophils) at 2- and 4-week time points, which the authors suggested may lead to a more elastic repair and less scar at the bone-tendon healing site. Oh and colleagues¹ evaluated the use of a-MSCs in a rabbit subscapularis tear model, and reported significantly reduced fatty infiltration at the site of chronic rotator cuff tear after repair with its application at the repair site; while the load-to-failure was higher in those rabbits with ASCs administration, it was short of reaching statistical significance. Yokoya and colleagues⁶⁹ demonstrated regeneration of rotator cuff tendon-to-bone insertional site anatomy and in the belly of the cuff tendon in a rabbit model with MSCs applied at the operative site. However, Gulotta and colleagues⁷⁰ did not see the same improvement in their similar study in the rat model; these authors failed to see improvement in structure, strength, or composition of the tendinous attachment site despite addition of MSCs.

Clinical studies on augmented rotator cuff repair have also found mixed results. MSCs for this purpose have been cultivated from arthroscopic bone marrow aspiration of the proximal humerus⁷¹ and subacromial bursa⁷² with successful and reproducibly high concentrations of stem cells. Hernigou and colleagues⁷³ found a significant improvement in rate of healing (87% intact cuffs vs 44% in the control group) and repair surface tendon integrity (via ultrasound and MRI) for patients at a minimum of 10 years after rotator cuff repair with MSC injection at the time of surgery. The authors found a direct correlation in these outcomes with the number of MSCs injected at the time of repair. Ellera Gomes and colleagues⁷⁴ injected bm-MSCs obtained from the iliac crest into the tendinous repair site in 14 consecutive patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears treated by transosseous sutures via a mini-open approach. MRI demonstrated integrity of the repair site in all patients at more than 1-year follow-up.

Achilles Tendon Repair

The goal with stem cell use in Achilles repair is to accelerate the healing and rehabilitation. Several animal studies have demonstrated improved mechanical properties and collagen composition of tendon repairs augmented with stem cells, including Achilles tendon repair in a rat model. Adams and colleagues⁷⁵ compared suture alone (36 tendons) to suture plus stem cell concentrate injection (36 tendons) and stem cell loaded suture (36 tendons) in Achilles tendon repair with rat models. The suture-alone cohort had lower ultimate failure loads at 14 days after surgery, indicating biomechanical superiority with stem cell augmentation means. Transplantation of hypoxic MSCs at the time of Achilles tendon repair may be a promising option for superior biomechanical failure loads and histologic findings as per recent rat model findings by Huang and colleagues.⁷⁶ Yao and colleagues⁷⁷ demonstrated increased strength of suture repair for Achilles repair in rat models at early time points when using MSC-coated suture in comparison to standard suture, and suggested that the addition of stem cells may improve early mechanical properties during the tendon repair process. A-MSC addition to PRP has provided significantly increased tensile strength to rabbit models with Achilles tendon repair as well.⁷⁸

In evaluation of stem cell use for this purpose with humans, Stein and colleagues⁷⁹ reviewed 28 sports-related Achilles tendon ruptures in 27 patients treated with open repair and BMAC injection. At a mean follow-up of 29.7 months, the authors reported no re-ruptures, with 92% return to sport at 5.9 months, and excellent clinical outcomes. This small cohort study found no adverse outcomes related to the BMAC addition, and thus proposed further study of the efficacy of stem cell treatment for Achilles tendon repair.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Bm-MSCs genetically modified with bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) have shown great promise in improvement of the formation of mechanically sound tendon-bone interface in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.⁸⁰ Similar to the other surgical procedures mentioned in this review, animal studies have successfully evaluated the augmentation of osteointegration of tendon to bone in the setting of ACL reconstruction. Jang and colleagues³ investigated the use of nonautologous transplantation of human umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs in a rabbit ACL reconstruction model. The authors demonstrated a lack of immune rejection, and enhanced tendon-bone healing with broad fibrocartilage formation at the transition zone (similar to the native ACL) and decreased femoral and tibial tunnel widening as compared to a control cohort at 12-weeks after surgery. In a rat model, Kanaya and colleagues⁸¹ reported improved histological scores and slight improvements in biomechanical integrity of partially transected rat ACLs treated with intra-articular MSC injection. Stem cell use in the form of suture-supporting scaffolds seeded with MSCs has been evaluated in a total ACL transection rabbit model; the authors of this report demonstrated total ACL regeneration in one-third of samples treated with this augmentation option, in comparison to complete failure in all suture and scaffold alone groups.⁸²

The use of autologous MSCs in ACL healing remains limited to preclinical research and small case series of patients. One human trial by Silva and colleagues⁸³ evaluated the graft-to-bone site of healing in ACL reconstruction for 20 patients who received an intraoperative infiltration of their graft with adult bm-MSCs. MRI and histologic analysis showed no difference in comparison to control groups, but the authors’ conclusion proposed that the number of stem cells injected might have been too minimal to show a clinical effect.

Other Applications

Although outside the scope of this article, stem cells have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of a number of osseous clinical entities. This includes the treatment of fracture nonunion, augmentation of spinal fusion, and assistance in the treatment of osteonecrosis.⁸⁴

Summary

As a scientific community, our understanding of the use of stem cells, their nuances, and their indications has expanded dramatically over the last several years. Stem cell treatment has particularly infiltrated the world of operative and nonoperative sports medicine, given in part the active patient population seeking greater levels of improvement.⁸⁵ Stem cell therapy offers a potentially effective therapy for a multitude of pathologies because of these cells’ anti-inflammatory, immunoregulatory, angiogenic, and paracrine effects.⁸⁶ It thus remains a very dynamic option in the study of musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. While the potential exists for stem cell use in daily surgery practices, it is still premature to predict whether this can be expected.

The ideal stem cell sources (including allogeneic or autologous), preparation, cell number, timing, and means of application continue to be evaluated, as well as those advantageous pathologies that can benefit from the technology. In order to better answer these pertinent questions, we need to make sure we have a safe, economic, and ethically acceptable means for stem cell translational research efforts. More high-level studies with standardized protocols need to be performed. It is necessary to improve national and international collaboration in research, as well as collaboration with governing bodies, to attempt to further scientific advancement in this field of research.⁴⁹ Further study on embryonic stem cell use may be valuable as well, pending governmental approval. Finally, more dedicated research efforts must be placed on the utility of adjuncts with stem cell use, including PRP and scaffolds, which may increase protection, nutritional support, and mechanical stimulation of the administered stem cells.

The 2 cardinal properties of stem cells are the ability to self-renew and the ability to differentiate into distinctive end-stage cell types. The work of Caplan¹ captured our early attention, with cells cultured from bone marrow differentiating into a number of different cell types of orthopedic interest. Our latest attention has been captured by the additional abilities of these cells to mobilize, monitor, and interact with their surrounding environment.^2-4 In response to their environment, stem cells are able to release a broad spectrum of macromolecules with trophic, chemotactic, and immunomodulatory potential, which allows them to participate in injury response, tissue healing, and tissue regeneration.⁴ These cells are innate to the body’s monitoring, maintenance, repair, and stress response systems.^2,4-11 Basic science and animal studies have illustrated the potential of cells with stem potential regardless of their environment/source of harvest.

Where Can We Get Stem Cells?

Cells with stem properties are present in many environmental niches, including the bone marrow, peripheral circulatory system, adipose tissue, synovial tissue, muscle tissue, and tendon tissue.^12-15 A number of cell types with stem properties populate the bone marrow niche, including hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC), perivascular stromal cells (PSC), endothelial stem cells (ESC), and immature cells with qualities like embryonal stem cells termed very small embryonal-like stem cells (VESL).^12,15-19 All of these cells have stem properties and have been shown to differentiate to tissues of orthopedic interest.The interplay, interaction, and potential of these cell types is complex and incompletely understood.^12,15-19 When bone marrow is aspirated for culturing purposes, it is unclear which cell line produces the plastic-adherent multipotent cells grown in culture, which are often referred to as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Researches propose that HSPC and/or VESL circulate peripherally in small numbers but leave the bone marrow in certain mobilization instances and are important for the monitoring and maintenance of the majority of tissues in our bodies.^5,16 Current clinical utilization of these cell types by the orthopedic community primarily utilizes point-of-care bone marrow aspiration and concentration, while the hematology oncology community mobilizes cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream with pharmaceutical agents and harvests cells via apheresis. Bone marrow aspiration produces variable numbers of stem cells, with studies ranging from 1 stem cell per mL of tissue collected to 300,000 stem cells per mL of tissue collected.20Mobilization and apheresis can produce large volumes of peripheral blood-derived cells with 600,000 HSPC per mL and 2.32 million PSC per mL of tissue collected.²¹

In adipose tissue, cells adherent to the abluminal side of blood vessels known as pericytes also carry stem qualities. Aspiration and processing of adipose tissue can access these stem cells, producing a product often referred to as stromal vascular fraction (SVF). Processing of lipoaspirate to create stromal vascular fraction requires mechanical or enzymatic processing. This also produces variable numbers of stem cells, with quantitative studies ranging from 5000 to 1.5 million stem cells per mL of tissue collected.²⁰ Similar to adipose-derived stem cells, synovial-derived and muscle-derived stem cells also require mechanical or enzymatic processing. For applications where it is believed that a large number of cells is necessary, investigators often utilize culturing techniques for all sources with the exception of mobilization and apheresis harvest. As clinicians, 3 challenges have proven more important than which cell type to utilize: 1) patient-care logistics regarding collection and application; 2) the undefined dose-response curve regarding stem cell treatments; and 3) evolving government/community regulation.

Regulation of Stem Cell Therapies

The regulation of stem cell technologies is a double-edged sword for development. While loose regulation encourages clinical application and experimentation, patient safety and efficacy concerns are raised, and a technology’s worth is not proven before clinical application. Tight regulation temporarily hampers progress, yet ensures the proof of safety and efficacy prior to widespread implementation. Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tightened regulation, established precedent, and intervened in the ability of clinicians to utilize stem cell therapies in humans, through “warning letters,” “untitled letters,” and industry guidance documents.^22-30

The FDA categorizes stem cell therapies as human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Section 361 of the Public Health Safety (PHS) Act established and outlined the authority of the FDA to regulate low-risk HCT/Ps in order to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. Section 361 provided standards for safety without requiring preclinical development. The FDA established 4 principles to determine the risk of HCT/Ps: the extent of manipulation involved in manufacture, the metabolic activity/autologous nature of the product, whether the product represents a tissue combined with another product, and whether the product is utilized in a fashion homologous with its original function (Figure 1). If a product/therapy meets requirements around all 4 of these principles, then it is deemed a low-risk product and regulated under Section 361 alone. If a product/therapy does not meet requirements around all 4 of these principles, then the FDA regulates the product/therapy under additional codes including Section 351 of the PHS Act. Section 351 outlines a developmental process including preclinical animal trials, phased clinical study, and premarket review by the FDA prior to offering the product/treatment in clinical practice. The developmental process requires investigators and/or industry developers to initiate an Investigational New Drug (IND) program whose end goal is to present data from all developmental study and obtain a Biologic License Application (BLA) approval to market the product.^22-23 To establish safety and efficacy, the traditional IND program involves a preclinical animal study, a small pilot human study (Phase I), a small initial randomized controlled trial (Phase II), followed by a large multicenter randomized controlled trial (Phase III) (Figure 2). The FDA has recognized little to no stem cell treatments as products regulated by Section 361 alone. Additionally, the FDA has established precedent regarding allograft stem cells, cells obtained from fat harvest, amniotic/placental products, and cultured cells, suggesting that these products are not low risk and require an IND pathway outlined in Section 351.^24-30

Bone Marrow Aspiration

Surprisingly, the FDA has not moved to regulate the point-of-care use of bone marrow aspirate or platelet-rich plasma and has labeled these as “not HCTPs.” The stem cell concentration of bone marrow aspirate is technique-dependent, declines with age, and has been found to be an important factor for clinical benefit.³¹ While it is possible to aspirate from multiple sites, posterior iliac crest harvest produces the highest stem cell yield.^32-34 Hernigou and colleagues^35-36 have outlined safe zones for trocar placement and illustrated that strong aspiration with small-volume syringes, 10-mL syringes, optimizes stem cell harvest. Additionally, studies by Hernigou and colleagues^31,37-38 involving tibial nonunion, avascular necrosis of the femur, and augmentation of rotator cuff repair are guideposts to clinicians utilizing bone marrow aspirate.

Amniotic Stem Cell Technologies and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells

While some argue that there is regulatory confusion around amniotic/placental-derived tissues and adipose-derived products, the FDA has clearly established precedent establishing these as products requiring Section 351 development.^26-29 Companies are marketing products derived from perinatal byproducts, yet there are multiple FDA letters suggesting that these are not products regulated solely under PHS Act 361 because they do not meet the criteria of homologous use and are not autologous.^28-29 Use of these products places risk upon the clinician and the patient. Some argue that adipose-derived stem cell products are 361 products. While the FDA has approved devices for the mechanical processing of lipoaspirate, they have established precedent suggesting that they consider orthopedic applications nonhomologous and any processing that “alters the original relevant characteristics of adipose tissue relating to the tissue’s utility for reconstruction, repair, or replacement” as more than minimal manipulation.^26,27 The FDA originally planned an open forum for discussion with clinicians and industry for April 2016. This open forum was delayed due to the volume of interest, and a workshop has been planned for Fall 2016.

Future Regulation of Stem Cell Technologies

While many countries have mirrored the FDA with tight regulatory mechanisms, a few countries have established modern regulatory mechanisms aimed at the promotion of conscientious development, including South Korea, Japan, and England. For example, in 2014 Japan labeled stem cell technologies as “regenerative medicine products,” setting them apart from pharmaceuticals, and implemented a new approval system allowing early observed commercialization with reimbursement after less stringent safety and efficacy milestones.²²The observed commercialization lowers time and financial hurdles for development while still requiring the proof of the technology’s worth. Countries that have effected change have positioned themselves to be pioneers in this emerging field.

In March 2016, the Reliable and Effective Growth for Regenerative Health Options that Improve Wellness (REGROW) Act of 2016 (S. 2689 / H.R. 4762) was introduced into the United States Congress. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation was introduced, read twice, and referred to subcommittee. Its goal is to reduce barriers and accelerate development of biologic therapies while keeping the frame work set forth under Sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act.³⁹ Similar to the pathway in Japan, the REGROW Act would establish a conditional approval pathway that would ensure products are safe and effective while also evolving the regulatory pathway towards progress (Figure 3). Development would still require an IND application after preclinical animal study. However, after safety was established with human Phase I data and preliminary evidence of efficacy with Phase II data, patients could be treated with the investigational therapies and reimbursement collected for a limited period of time (5 years) prior to a large Phase III human clinical trial. Patients treated with the new therapy would be monitored closely. All results would be reported to the FDA in a BLA. This change in legislation would lower but not remove regulatory hurdles necessary for development.

Conclusion

The future of stem cell treatments hinges upon the creation of new favorable regulatory mechanisms that will promote clinical application while ensuring that safety and efficacy milestones are reached. Clinical researchers require freedom to develop these technologies while protecting patients and ensuring the validity of treatments. The coordination of research and regulatory affairs on a global level is necessary focusing on the harmonization of guidelines, regulations, and mechanisms for simultaneous adoption in different countries. The global orthopedic community has made strides regarding the science of stem cell technologies; it is time for us to initiate progressive change regarding regulation so that we can determine what is effective clinically.

The 2 cardinal properties of stem cells are the ability to self-renew and the ability to differentiate into distinctive end-stage cell types. The work of Caplan¹ captured our early attention, with cells cultured from bone marrow differentiating into a number of different cell types of orthopedic interest. Our latest attention has been captured by the additional abilities of these cells to mobilize, monitor, and interact with their surrounding environment.^2-4 In response to their environment, stem cells are able to release a broad spectrum of macromolecules with trophic, chemotactic, and immunomodulatory potential, which allows them to participate in injury response, tissue healing, and tissue regeneration.⁴ These cells are innate to the body’s monitoring, maintenance, repair, and stress response systems.^2,4-11 Basic science and animal studies have illustrated the potential of cells with stem potential regardless of their environment/source of harvest.

Where Can We Get Stem Cells?

Cells with stem properties are present in many environmental niches, including the bone marrow, peripheral circulatory system, adipose tissue, synovial tissue, muscle tissue, and tendon tissue.^12-15 A number of cell types with stem properties populate the bone marrow niche, including hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC), perivascular stromal cells (PSC), endothelial stem cells (ESC), and immature cells with qualities like embryonal stem cells termed very small embryonal-like stem cells (VESL).^12,15-19 All of these cells have stem properties and have been shown to differentiate to tissues of orthopedic interest.The interplay, interaction, and potential of these cell types is complex and incompletely understood.^12,15-19 When bone marrow is aspirated for culturing purposes, it is unclear which cell line produces the plastic-adherent multipotent cells grown in culture, which are often referred to as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Researches propose that HSPC and/or VESL circulate peripherally in small numbers but leave the bone marrow in certain mobilization instances and are important for the monitoring and maintenance of the majority of tissues in our bodies.^5,16 Current clinical utilization of these cell types by the orthopedic community primarily utilizes point-of-care bone marrow aspiration and concentration, while the hematology oncology community mobilizes cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream with pharmaceutical agents and harvests cells via apheresis. Bone marrow aspiration produces variable numbers of stem cells, with studies ranging from 1 stem cell per mL of tissue collected to 300,000 stem cells per mL of tissue collected.20Mobilization and apheresis can produce large volumes of peripheral blood-derived cells with 600,000 HSPC per mL and 2.32 million PSC per mL of tissue collected.²¹

In adipose tissue, cells adherent to the abluminal side of blood vessels known as pericytes also carry stem qualities. Aspiration and processing of adipose tissue can access these stem cells, producing a product often referred to as stromal vascular fraction (SVF). Processing of lipoaspirate to create stromal vascular fraction requires mechanical or enzymatic processing. This also produces variable numbers of stem cells, with quantitative studies ranging from 5000 to 1.5 million stem cells per mL of tissue collected.²⁰ Similar to adipose-derived stem cells, synovial-derived and muscle-derived stem cells also require mechanical or enzymatic processing. For applications where it is believed that a large number of cells is necessary, investigators often utilize culturing techniques for all sources with the exception of mobilization and apheresis harvest. As clinicians, 3 challenges have proven more important than which cell type to utilize: 1) patient-care logistics regarding collection and application; 2) the undefined dose-response curve regarding stem cell treatments; and 3) evolving government/community regulation.

Regulation of Stem Cell Therapies

The regulation of stem cell technologies is a double-edged sword for development. While loose regulation encourages clinical application and experimentation, patient safety and efficacy concerns are raised, and a technology’s worth is not proven before clinical application. Tight regulation temporarily hampers progress, yet ensures the proof of safety and efficacy prior to widespread implementation. Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tightened regulation, established precedent, and intervened in the ability of clinicians to utilize stem cell therapies in humans, through “warning letters,” “untitled letters,” and industry guidance documents.^22-30

The FDA categorizes stem cell therapies as human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Section 361 of the Public Health Safety (PHS) Act established and outlined the authority of the FDA to regulate low-risk HCT/Ps in order to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. Section 361 provided standards for safety without requiring preclinical development. The FDA established 4 principles to determine the risk of HCT/Ps: the extent of manipulation involved in manufacture, the metabolic activity/autologous nature of the product, whether the product represents a tissue combined with another product, and whether the product is utilized in a fashion homologous with its original function (Figure 1). If a product/therapy meets requirements around all 4 of these principles, then it is deemed a low-risk product and regulated under Section 361 alone. If a product/therapy does not meet requirements around all 4 of these principles, then the FDA regulates the product/therapy under additional codes including Section 351 of the PHS Act. Section 351 outlines a developmental process including preclinical animal trials, phased clinical study, and premarket review by the FDA prior to offering the product/treatment in clinical practice. The developmental process requires investigators and/or industry developers to initiate an Investigational New Drug (IND) program whose end goal is to present data from all developmental study and obtain a Biologic License Application (BLA) approval to market the product.^22-23 To establish safety and efficacy, the traditional IND program involves a preclinical animal study, a small pilot human study (Phase I), a small initial randomized controlled trial (Phase II), followed by a large multicenter randomized controlled trial (Phase III) (Figure 2). The FDA has recognized little to no stem cell treatments as products regulated by Section 361 alone. Additionally, the FDA has established precedent regarding allograft stem cells, cells obtained from fat harvest, amniotic/placental products, and cultured cells, suggesting that these products are not low risk and require an IND pathway outlined in Section 351.^24-30

Bone Marrow Aspiration

Surprisingly, the FDA has not moved to regulate the point-of-care use of bone marrow aspirate or platelet-rich plasma and has labeled these as “not HCTPs.” The stem cell concentration of bone marrow aspirate is technique-dependent, declines with age, and has been found to be an important factor for clinical benefit.³¹ While it is possible to aspirate from multiple sites, posterior iliac crest harvest produces the highest stem cell yield.^32-34 Hernigou and colleagues^35-36 have outlined safe zones for trocar placement and illustrated that strong aspiration with small-volume syringes, 10-mL syringes, optimizes stem cell harvest. Additionally, studies by Hernigou and colleagues^31,37-38 involving tibial nonunion, avascular necrosis of the femur, and augmentation of rotator cuff repair are guideposts to clinicians utilizing bone marrow aspirate.

Amniotic Stem Cell Technologies and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells

While some argue that there is regulatory confusion around amniotic/placental-derived tissues and adipose-derived products, the FDA has clearly established precedent establishing these as products requiring Section 351 development.^26-29 Companies are marketing products derived from perinatal byproducts, yet there are multiple FDA letters suggesting that these are not products regulated solely under PHS Act 361 because they do not meet the criteria of homologous use and are not autologous.^28-29 Use of these products places risk upon the clinician and the patient. Some argue that adipose-derived stem cell products are 361 products. While the FDA has approved devices for the mechanical processing of lipoaspirate, they have established precedent suggesting that they consider orthopedic applications nonhomologous and any processing that “alters the original relevant characteristics of adipose tissue relating to the tissue’s utility for reconstruction, repair, or replacement” as more than minimal manipulation.^26,27 The FDA originally planned an open forum for discussion with clinicians and industry for April 2016. This open forum was delayed due to the volume of interest, and a workshop has been planned for Fall 2016.

Future Regulation of Stem Cell Technologies

While many countries have mirrored the FDA with tight regulatory mechanisms, a few countries have established modern regulatory mechanisms aimed at the promotion of conscientious development, including South Korea, Japan, and England. For example, in 2014 Japan labeled stem cell technologies as “regenerative medicine products,” setting them apart from pharmaceuticals, and implemented a new approval system allowing early observed commercialization with reimbursement after less stringent safety and efficacy milestones.²²The observed commercialization lowers time and financial hurdles for development while still requiring the proof of the technology’s worth. Countries that have effected change have positioned themselves to be pioneers in this emerging field.

In March 2016, the Reliable and Effective Growth for Regenerative Health Options that Improve Wellness (REGROW) Act of 2016 (S. 2689 / H.R. 4762) was introduced into the United States Congress. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation was introduced, read twice, and referred to subcommittee. Its goal is to reduce barriers and accelerate development of biologic therapies while keeping the frame work set forth under Sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act.³⁹ Similar to the pathway in Japan, the REGROW Act would establish a conditional approval pathway that would ensure products are safe and effective while also evolving the regulatory pathway towards progress (Figure 3). Development would still require an IND application after preclinical animal study. However, after safety was established with human Phase I data and preliminary evidence of efficacy with Phase II data, patients could be treated with the investigational therapies and reimbursement collected for a limited period of time (5 years) prior to a large Phase III human clinical trial. Patients treated with the new therapy would be monitored closely. All results would be reported to the FDA in a BLA. This change in legislation would lower but not remove regulatory hurdles necessary for development.

Conclusion

The future of stem cell treatments hinges upon the creation of new favorable regulatory mechanisms that will promote clinical application while ensuring that safety and efficacy milestones are reached. Clinical researchers require freedom to develop these technologies while protecting patients and ensuring the validity of treatments. The coordination of research and regulatory affairs on a global level is necessary focusing on the harmonization of guidelines, regulations, and mechanisms for simultaneous adoption in different countries. The global orthopedic community has made strides regarding the science of stem cell technologies; it is time for us to initiate progressive change regarding regulation so that we can determine what is effective clinically.

The 2 cardinal properties of stem cells are the ability to self-renew and the ability to differentiate into distinctive end-stage cell types. The work of Caplan¹ captured our early attention, with cells cultured from bone marrow differentiating into a number of different cell types of orthopedic interest. Our latest attention has been captured by the additional abilities of these cells to mobilize, monitor, and interact with their surrounding environment.^2-4 In response to their environment, stem cells are able to release a broad spectrum of macromolecules with trophic, chemotactic, and immunomodulatory potential, which allows them to participate in injury response, tissue healing, and tissue regeneration.⁴ These cells are innate to the body’s monitoring, maintenance, repair, and stress response systems.^2,4-11 Basic science and animal studies have illustrated the potential of cells with stem potential regardless of their environment/source of harvest.

Where Can We Get Stem Cells?

Cells with stem properties are present in many environmental niches, including the bone marrow, peripheral circulatory system, adipose tissue, synovial tissue, muscle tissue, and tendon tissue.^12-15 A number of cell types with stem properties populate the bone marrow niche, including hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC), perivascular stromal cells (PSC), endothelial stem cells (ESC), and immature cells with qualities like embryonal stem cells termed very small embryonal-like stem cells (VESL).^12,15-19 All of these cells have stem properties and have been shown to differentiate to tissues of orthopedic interest.The interplay, interaction, and potential of these cell types is complex and incompletely understood.^12,15-19 When bone marrow is aspirated for culturing purposes, it is unclear which cell line produces the plastic-adherent multipotent cells grown in culture, which are often referred to as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Researches propose that HSPC and/or VESL circulate peripherally in small numbers but leave the bone marrow in certain mobilization instances and are important for the monitoring and maintenance of the majority of tissues in our bodies.^5,16 Current clinical utilization of these cell types by the orthopedic community primarily utilizes point-of-care bone marrow aspiration and concentration, while the hematology oncology community mobilizes cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream with pharmaceutical agents and harvests cells via apheresis. Bone marrow aspiration produces variable numbers of stem cells, with studies ranging from 1 stem cell per mL of tissue collected to 300,000 stem cells per mL of tissue collected.20Mobilization and apheresis can produce large volumes of peripheral blood-derived cells with 600,000 HSPC per mL and 2.32 million PSC per mL of tissue collected.²¹

In adipose tissue, cells adherent to the abluminal side of blood vessels known as pericytes also carry stem qualities. Aspiration and processing of adipose tissue can access these stem cells, producing a product often referred to as stromal vascular fraction (SVF). Processing of lipoaspirate to create stromal vascular fraction requires mechanical or enzymatic processing. This also produces variable numbers of stem cells, with quantitative studies ranging from 5000 to 1.5 million stem cells per mL of tissue collected.²⁰ Similar to adipose-derived stem cells, synovial-derived and muscle-derived stem cells also require mechanical or enzymatic processing. For applications where it is believed that a large number of cells is necessary, investigators often utilize culturing techniques for all sources with the exception of mobilization and apheresis harvest. As clinicians, 3 challenges have proven more important than which cell type to utilize: 1) patient-care logistics regarding collection and application; 2) the undefined dose-response curve regarding stem cell treatments; and 3) evolving government/community regulation.

Regulation of Stem Cell Therapies

The regulation of stem cell technologies is a double-edged sword for development. While loose regulation encourages clinical application and experimentation, patient safety and efficacy concerns are raised, and a technology’s worth is not proven before clinical application. Tight regulation temporarily hampers progress, yet ensures the proof of safety and efficacy prior to widespread implementation. Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tightened regulation, established precedent, and intervened in the ability of clinicians to utilize stem cell therapies in humans, through “warning letters,” “untitled letters,” and industry guidance documents.^22-30

The FDA categorizes stem cell therapies as human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Section 361 of the Public Health Safety (PHS) Act established and outlined the authority of the FDA to regulate low-risk HCT/Ps in order to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. Section 361 provided standards for safety without requiring preclinical development. The FDA established 4 principles to determine the risk of HCT/Ps: the extent of manipulation involved in manufacture, the metabolic activity/autologous nature of the product, whether the product represents a tissue combined with another product, and whether the product is utilized in a fashion homologous with its original function (Figure 1). If a product/therapy meets requirements around all 4 of these principles, then it is deemed a low-risk product and regulated under Section 361 alone. If a product/therapy does not meet requirements around all 4 of these principles, then the FDA regulates the product/therapy under additional codes including Section 351 of the PHS Act. Section 351 outlines a developmental process including preclinical animal trials, phased clinical study, and premarket review by the FDA prior to offering the product/treatment in clinical practice. The developmental process requires investigators and/or industry developers to initiate an Investigational New Drug (IND) program whose end goal is to present data from all developmental study and obtain a Biologic License Application (BLA) approval to market the product.^22-23 To establish safety and efficacy, the traditional IND program involves a preclinical animal study, a small pilot human study (Phase I), a small initial randomized controlled trial (Phase II), followed by a large multicenter randomized controlled trial (Phase III) (Figure 2). The FDA has recognized little to no stem cell treatments as products regulated by Section 361 alone. Additionally, the FDA has established precedent regarding allograft stem cells, cells obtained from fat harvest, amniotic/placental products, and cultured cells, suggesting that these products are not low risk and require an IND pathway outlined in Section 351.^24-30

Bone Marrow Aspiration

Surprisingly, the FDA has not moved to regulate the point-of-care use of bone marrow aspirate or platelet-rich plasma and has labeled these as “not HCTPs.” The stem cell concentration of bone marrow aspirate is technique-dependent, declines with age, and has been found to be an important factor for clinical benefit.³¹ While it is possible to aspirate from multiple sites, posterior iliac crest harvest produces the highest stem cell yield.^32-34 Hernigou and colleagues^35-36 have outlined safe zones for trocar placement and illustrated that strong aspiration with small-volume syringes, 10-mL syringes, optimizes stem cell harvest. Additionally, studies by Hernigou and colleagues^31,37-38 involving tibial nonunion, avascular necrosis of the femur, and augmentation of rotator cuff repair are guideposts to clinicians utilizing bone marrow aspirate.

Amniotic Stem Cell Technologies and Adipose-Derived Stem Cells

While some argue that there is regulatory confusion around amniotic/placental-derived tissues and adipose-derived products, the FDA has clearly established precedent establishing these as products requiring Section 351 development.^26-29 Companies are marketing products derived from perinatal byproducts, yet there are multiple FDA letters suggesting that these are not products regulated solely under PHS Act 361 because they do not meet the criteria of homologous use and are not autologous.^28-29 Use of these products places risk upon the clinician and the patient. Some argue that adipose-derived stem cell products are 361 products. While the FDA has approved devices for the mechanical processing of lipoaspirate, they have established precedent suggesting that they consider orthopedic applications nonhomologous and any processing that “alters the original relevant characteristics of adipose tissue relating to the tissue’s utility for reconstruction, repair, or replacement” as more than minimal manipulation.^26,27 The FDA originally planned an open forum for discussion with clinicians and industry for April 2016. This open forum was delayed due to the volume of interest, and a workshop has been planned for Fall 2016.

Future Regulation of Stem Cell Technologies

While many countries have mirrored the FDA with tight regulatory mechanisms, a few countries have established modern regulatory mechanisms aimed at the promotion of conscientious development, including South Korea, Japan, and England. For example, in 2014 Japan labeled stem cell technologies as “regenerative medicine products,” setting them apart from pharmaceuticals, and implemented a new approval system allowing early observed commercialization with reimbursement after less stringent safety and efficacy milestones.²²The observed commercialization lowers time and financial hurdles for development while still requiring the proof of the technology’s worth. Countries that have effected change have positioned themselves to be pioneers in this emerging field.

In March 2016, the Reliable and Effective Growth for Regenerative Health Options that Improve Wellness (REGROW) Act of 2016 (S. 2689 / H.R. 4762) was introduced into the United States Congress. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation was introduced, read twice, and referred to subcommittee. Its goal is to reduce barriers and accelerate development of biologic therapies while keeping the frame work set forth under Sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act.³⁹ Similar to the pathway in Japan, the REGROW Act would establish a conditional approval pathway that would ensure products are safe and effective while also evolving the regulatory pathway towards progress (Figure 3). Development would still require an IND application after preclinical animal study. However, after safety was established with human Phase I data and preliminary evidence of efficacy with Phase II data, patients could be treated with the investigational therapies and reimbursement collected for a limited period of time (5 years) prior to a large Phase III human clinical trial. Patients treated with the new therapy would be monitored closely. All results would be reported to the FDA in a BLA. This change in legislation would lower but not remove regulatory hurdles necessary for development.

Conclusion

The future of stem cell treatments hinges upon the creation of new favorable regulatory mechanisms that will promote clinical application while ensuring that safety and efficacy milestones are reached. Clinical researchers require freedom to develop these technologies while protecting patients and ensuring the validity of treatments. The coordination of research and regulatory affairs on a global level is necessary focusing on the harmonization of guidelines, regulations, and mechanisms for simultaneous adoption in different countries. The global orthopedic community has made strides regarding the science of stem cell technologies; it is time for us to initiate progressive change regarding regulation so that we can determine what is effective clinically.

The sun has finally set on Kobe Bryant’s magnificent career. After all the tributes and tearful goodbyes, he has finally played his last game and become a part of basketball history. Ever since his field trip to Germany for interleukin-1 receptor antagonist protein (IRAP) treatments to his knee, and his subsequent return to high-level play, I’ve been under siege in the office by patients who “want what Kobe had.” I’ve had to explain, time and time again, that IRAP treatment is not available in the United States and that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the closest alternative treatment, convince them that PRP may be even better, and then let them know that it’s considered experimental and not covered by insurance.

In the last issue, we discussed the future of orthopedics, which in my opinion will rely heavily on the biologic therapies now considered experimental. In this issue, we will look into our crystal balls and imagine what that future might look like. To do so, we should first consider what we hope to accomplish through the incorporation of biologic therapies.

The regeneration of articular cartilage, acceleration of fracture and tissue healing, and faster incorporation of tendon grafts to bone have long been considered the Holy Grail of Orthopedics. In his best seller, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes a compelling argument that the Holy Grail, the chalice thought to have held the blood of Christ, was in fact a mistranslated reference to his living descendants. Whenever I have a visitor or student in the operating room, I focus the scope on the synovial capillaries so they can see the individual red blood cells passing single-file through the vessels on their way to supply cells with the nutrients they need.

Perhaps, like in The Da Vinci Code, the solution to our greatest biologic challenges lies in the blood, already there, just waiting to be unlocked.

PRP has been utilized for everything from tendinopathy to arthropathy, with varied results in the literature. The lack of standardization of PRP preparations, which vary in inclusion of white cells and absolute platelet count, confounds these results even further. In this issue, we review its use in sports medicine and knee arthritis, taking a closer look at partial ulnar collateral ligament tears in baseball players.

In “Tips of the Trade,” we present a technique for “superior capsular reconstruction” that provides a novel solution for patients with pseudoparalysis from massive rotator cuff tears with little other options beside reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

The one absolute statement I can make regarding biologics is that we currently have more questions than answers, and every hypothesis we prove simply begets more questions. More randomized controlled studies are needed in virtually every aspect of biologics, and we should all consider taking part. While the solutions our patients crave may not arrive during our careers, or even our lifetimes, the groundwork we do now will set the stage for future generations to enjoy biologically enhanced outcomes.

The sun has finally set on Kobe Bryant’s magnificent career. After all the tributes and tearful goodbyes, he has finally played his last game and become a part of basketball history. Ever since his field trip to Germany for interleukin-1 receptor antagonist protein (IRAP) treatments to his knee, and his subsequent return to high-level play, I’ve been under siege in the office by patients who “want what Kobe had.” I’ve had to explain, time and time again, that IRAP treatment is not available in the United States and that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the closest alternative treatment, convince them that PRP may be even better, and then let them know that it’s considered experimental and not covered by insurance.

In the last issue, we discussed the future of orthopedics, which in my opinion will rely heavily on the biologic therapies now considered experimental. In this issue, we will look into our crystal balls and imagine what that future might look like. To do so, we should first consider what we hope to accomplish through the incorporation of biologic therapies.

The regeneration of articular cartilage, acceleration of fracture and tissue healing, and faster incorporation of tendon grafts to bone have long been considered the Holy Grail of Orthopedics. In his best seller, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes a compelling argument that the Holy Grail, the chalice thought to have held the blood of Christ, was in fact a mistranslated reference to his living descendants. Whenever I have a visitor or student in the operating room, I focus the scope on the synovial capillaries so they can see the individual red blood cells passing single-file through the vessels on their way to supply cells with the nutrients they need.

Perhaps, like in The Da Vinci Code, the solution to our greatest biologic challenges lies in the blood, already there, just waiting to be unlocked.

PRP has been utilized for everything from tendinopathy to arthropathy, with varied results in the literature. The lack of standardization of PRP preparations, which vary in inclusion of white cells and absolute platelet count, confounds these results even further. In this issue, we review its use in sports medicine and knee arthritis, taking a closer look at partial ulnar collateral ligament tears in baseball players.

In “Tips of the Trade,” we present a technique for “superior capsular reconstruction” that provides a novel solution for patients with pseudoparalysis from massive rotator cuff tears with little other options beside reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

The one absolute statement I can make regarding biologics is that we currently have more questions than answers, and every hypothesis we prove simply begets more questions. More randomized controlled studies are needed in virtually every aspect of biologics, and we should all consider taking part. While the solutions our patients crave may not arrive during our careers, or even our lifetimes, the groundwork we do now will set the stage for future generations to enjoy biologically enhanced outcomes.

The sun has finally set on Kobe Bryant’s magnificent career. After all the tributes and tearful goodbyes, he has finally played his last game and become a part of basketball history. Ever since his field trip to Germany for interleukin-1 receptor antagonist protein (IRAP) treatments to his knee, and his subsequent return to high-level play, I’ve been under siege in the office by patients who “want what Kobe had.” I’ve had to explain, time and time again, that IRAP treatment is not available in the United States and that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the closest alternative treatment, convince them that PRP may be even better, and then let them know that it’s considered experimental and not covered by insurance.

In the last issue, we discussed the future of orthopedics, which in my opinion will rely heavily on the biologic therapies now considered experimental. In this issue, we will look into our crystal balls and imagine what that future might look like. To do so, we should first consider what we hope to accomplish through the incorporation of biologic therapies.

The regeneration of articular cartilage, acceleration of fracture and tissue healing, and faster incorporation of tendon grafts to bone have long been considered the Holy Grail of Orthopedics. In his best seller, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes a compelling argument that the Holy Grail, the chalice thought to have held the blood of Christ, was in fact a mistranslated reference to his living descendants. Whenever I have a visitor or student in the operating room, I focus the scope on the synovial capillaries so they can see the individual red blood cells passing single-file through the vessels on their way to supply cells with the nutrients they need.

Perhaps, like in The Da Vinci Code, the solution to our greatest biologic challenges lies in the blood, already there, just waiting to be unlocked.

PRP has been utilized for everything from tendinopathy to arthropathy, with varied results in the literature. The lack of standardization of PRP preparations, which vary in inclusion of white cells and absolute platelet count, confounds these results even further. In this issue, we review its use in sports medicine and knee arthritis, taking a closer look at partial ulnar collateral ligament tears in baseball players.

In “Tips of the Trade,” we present a technique for “superior capsular reconstruction” that provides a novel solution for patients with pseudoparalysis from massive rotator cuff tears with little other options beside reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

The one absolute statement I can make regarding biologics is that we currently have more questions than answers, and every hypothesis we prove simply begets more questions. More randomized controlled studies are needed in virtually every aspect of biologics, and we should all consider taking part. While the solutions our patients crave may not arrive during our careers, or even our lifetimes, the groundwork we do now will set the stage for future generations to enjoy biologically enhanced outcomes.

A new index can be used to predict which women will experience faster bone loss while transitioning to menopause, according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

To create the new index, called the Bone Balance Index, researchers used data from a cohort of 685 women ages 42 to 52 as they went through menopause. The women were either premenopausal or in early perimenopause when they enrolled in the study, and all participants had their final menstrual period during follow-up.

Urine and blood samples were taken from the women to measure bone turnover markers. The women also had their bone mineral density measured every year.

The investigators combined measurements of bone breakdown and bone formation to determine each woman’s net bone balance before their final menstrual period. The study authors found that compared to a measurement of bone breakdown alone, the Bone Balance Index was a stronger predictor of bone loss from 2 years before the final menstrual period to 3 to 4 years later.

A new index can be used to predict which women will experience faster bone loss while transitioning to menopause, according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

To create the new index, called the Bone Balance Index, researchers used data from a cohort of 685 women ages 42 to 52 as they went through menopause. The women were either premenopausal or in early perimenopause when they enrolled in the study, and all participants had their final menstrual period during follow-up.

Urine and blood samples were taken from the women to measure bone turnover markers. The women also had their bone mineral density measured every year.

The investigators combined measurements of bone breakdown and bone formation to determine each woman’s net bone balance before their final menstrual period. The study authors found that compared to a measurement of bone breakdown alone, the Bone Balance Index was a stronger predictor of bone loss from 2 years before the final menstrual period to 3 to 4 years later.

A new index can be used to predict which women will experience faster bone loss while transitioning to menopause, according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

To create the new index, called the Bone Balance Index, researchers used data from a cohort of 685 women ages 42 to 52 as they went through menopause. The women were either premenopausal or in early perimenopause when they enrolled in the study, and all participants had their final menstrual period during follow-up.

Urine and blood samples were taken from the women to measure bone turnover markers. The women also had their bone mineral density measured every year.

The investigators combined measurements of bone breakdown and bone formation to determine each woman’s net bone balance before their final menstrual period. The study authors found that compared to a measurement of bone breakdown alone, the Bone Balance Index was a stronger predictor of bone loss from 2 years before the final menstrual period to 3 to 4 years later.

A substantial percentage of patients who receive opioid medications before undergoing arthroplasty continue to take them up to 6 months after surgery, according to a study published in Pain.

Researchers analyzed opioid use in 574 patients who underwent arthroplasty. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery to assess rates of long-term opioid use and risk factors for long-term opioid use. About 30% of patients were taking opioids prior to their joint replacement surgery. Of this group, 53% of knee-replacement patients and 35% of hip replacement patients continued taking opioids 6 months after surgery.

Patients who were not taking opioids prior to surgery were less likely to report persistent opioid use. About 8% in the knee replacement group and 4% in the hip replacement group were still taking opioids at the 6-month follow-up. Patients who were taking the highest doses of opioids before surgery were most likely to continue to take them for 6 months.

Among patients not previously taking opioids, those with higher pain scores the day of surgery were more likely to report persistent opioid use at 6 months. However, improvement in knee or hip pain after arthroplasty did not reduce the likelihood of long-term opioid use.

A substantial percentage of patients who receive opioid medications before undergoing arthroplasty continue to take them up to 6 months after surgery, according to a study published in Pain.

Researchers analyzed opioid use in 574 patients who underwent arthroplasty. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery to assess rates of long-term opioid use and risk factors for long-term opioid use. About 30% of patients were taking opioids prior to their joint replacement surgery. Of this group, 53% of knee-replacement patients and 35% of hip replacement patients continued taking opioids 6 months after surgery.

Patients who were not taking opioids prior to surgery were less likely to report persistent opioid use. About 8% in the knee replacement group and 4% in the hip replacement group were still taking opioids at the 6-month follow-up. Patients who were taking the highest doses of opioids before surgery were most likely to continue to take them for 6 months.

Among patients not previously taking opioids, those with higher pain scores the day of surgery were more likely to report persistent opioid use at 6 months. However, improvement in knee or hip pain after arthroplasty did not reduce the likelihood of long-term opioid use.

A substantial percentage of patients who receive opioid medications before undergoing arthroplasty continue to take them up to 6 months after surgery, according to a study published in Pain.

Researchers analyzed opioid use in 574 patients who underwent arthroplasty. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery to assess rates of long-term opioid use and risk factors for long-term opioid use. About 30% of patients were taking opioids prior to their joint replacement surgery. Of this group, 53% of knee-replacement patients and 35% of hip replacement patients continued taking opioids 6 months after surgery.

Patients who were not taking opioids prior to surgery were less likely to report persistent opioid use. About 8% in the knee replacement group and 4% in the hip replacement group were still taking opioids at the 6-month follow-up. Patients who were taking the highest doses of opioids before surgery were most likely to continue to take them for 6 months.

Among patients not previously taking opioids, those with higher pain scores the day of surgery were more likely to report persistent opioid use at 6 months. However, improvement in knee or hip pain after arthroplasty did not reduce the likelihood of long-term opioid use.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has introduced apps that orthopedic surgeons can use to explain musculoskeletal problems and procedures to their patients. The Guides to Orthopedic Surgery cover total knee replacement, total hip replacement, and ACL reconstruction. These apps can be loaded onto exam room desktops or used on an iPad.

The apps also provide ways to create custom educational information for patients, and may be set up with certain electronic medical records to support Meaningful Use requirements. A free trial of the apps is available until June 30. More information: www.aaosnotice.org/Ortho_App/.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has introduced apps that orthopedic surgeons can use to explain musculoskeletal problems and procedures to their patients. The Guides to Orthopedic Surgery cover total knee replacement, total hip replacement, and ACL reconstruction. These apps can be loaded onto exam room desktops or used on an iPad.

The apps also provide ways to create custom educational information for patients, and may be set up with certain electronic medical records to support Meaningful Use requirements. A free trial of the apps is available until June 30. More information: www.aaosnotice.org/Ortho_App/.

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has introduced apps that orthopedic surgeons can use to explain musculoskeletal problems and procedures to their patients. The Guides to Orthopedic Surgery cover total knee replacement, total hip replacement, and ACL reconstruction. These apps can be loaded onto exam room desktops or used on an iPad.

The apps also provide ways to create custom educational information for patients, and may be set up with certain electronic medical records to support Meaningful Use requirements. A free trial of the apps is available until June 30. More information: www.aaosnotice.org/Ortho_App/.

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.