Evaluation of Current Practices in the Use of Platelet Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Disorders

Speaker(s)

Mahi L1, Belattar K2, Ouafi M3, Allain L1, Lambert S4, Lammari R1, Vaineau R1
1Axelys Santé Fr, Malakoff, France, 2Centre Melunais d'Imagerie Médicale, Melun, Ile de France, France, 3Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien, Corbeil Essonne, Ile de France, France, 4Axelys Santé Fr, MALAKOFF, 92, France

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy holds promise for tissue regeneration, with increasing application across various indications. This survey aims to assess the use of PRP for the treatment of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.

METHODS: A qualitative cross-sectional survey was conducted among 200 physicians of different specialization practicing or interested in the use of PRP. An online self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect data. A total of 46 physicians (23%) responded to the questionnaire: among them 26% sports medicine physicians, 17% rheumatologists, 15% radiologists, 15% general practitioners, 9% rehabilitation physicians, 7% orthopedic surgeons and 11% from other specialties.

RESULTS: Most of them are familiar with PRP (98%) and consider it a valuable therapeutic option (96%). They are 74% who are prescribing it and among prescribers 94% are administrating injections. Main indications include tendinopathies (57%), osteoarthritis (40%), and ligament injuries (2%). PRP is often used as a second-line treatment after corticosteroids (66%) and less often after injections of hyaluronic acid (9%). To note only 34% of physicians request a complete blood count prior to PRP injections. Treatment evaluation primarily relies on patient feedback (55%) or specific scores (22%). Most of the physicians prefer leukocyte poor PRP (LP-PRP) (82%) and refer to national guidelines (74%). Physicians consider the following characteristics: elimination of red blood cells as the main priority (44%), followed by the volume of platelets (28%), and the collected volume of PRP (25%). Limiting points include the cost of the procedure (41%) and the lack of consolidated scientific data (24%).

CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the widespread recognition of PRP, particularly in sports medicine for tendinopathies. However, its evaluation is often based on subjective criteria. Although widely recognized and used, the practice of PRP requires controlled studies and generation of real-life observations to confirm its efficacy and extend its use.

Code

OP14

Topic

Medical Technologies, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Medical Devices, Surveys & Expert Panels

Disease

Medical Devices, Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal)