| Literature DB >> 25505929 |
Claudia Rizzo1, Roberta Vetro2, Angelo Vetro2, Roberto Mantia2, Angelo Iovane3, Marco Di Gesù2, Sonya Vasto4, Laura Di Noto1, Giuseppina Mazzola5, Calogero Caruso1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of autologous platelet gel in orthopedics is effective in accelerating the healing process of osteochondral, muscle, tendon and ligament lesions. The aim of our study was to verify whether the variability in response to infiltration with platelet gel was dependent on the underlying disease treated, sex and age of the patients. During four years, 140 patients have been treated for musculoskeletal injuries by infiltration of gel platelet and lysate platelet obtained from autologous thrombin, with echo-ultrasound guided. The response to treatment was assessed at different time points T0, T1, T2 with respect to pain estimation (VAS), joint mobility (ROM scale) and echo-ultrasound evaluation. This data collection has allowed classifying the response to treated lesions in three categories: NR (no response), PR (partial response), CR (complete response).Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Inflammation; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarticular injuries; Regenerative medicine
Year: 2014 PMID: 25505929 PMCID: PMC4263213 DOI: 10.1186/s12979-014-0021-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Immun Ageing ISSN: 1742-4933 Impact factor: 6.400
Figure 1Percentage of treated lesions in the sample.
Figure 2Distribution of osteoarticular diseases respect to gender.
Figure 3Osteoarticular lesions, mean age and gender.
Figure 4Trend of the VAS score (mean) in treated diseases.
Study sample with details of the treated diseases and degree of injury
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| 21 (64) | 28 (62) | Tendinopaty | 22% |
| Chronic tendinopaty | 24% | ||||
| partial rupture | 31% | ||||
| Sub-total rupture | 6% | ||||
| Total rupture | 16% | ||||
|
|
| 9 (58) | 28 (68) | ||
|
|
| 17 (47) | 3 (45) | Tendinopaty | 40% |
| Chronic tendinopaty | 10% | ||||
| Partial rupture | 40% | ||||
| Sub-total rupture | |||||
| Total rupture | 10% | ||||
|
|
| 11 (44) | 1 (66) | Distraction muscle | 42% |
| Muscle tear | 8% | ||||
| Focal muscle tear | 50% | ||||
|
|
| 2 (46) | 3 (51) | ||
|
|
| 1 (54) | 2 (57) | ||
|
|
| 3 (44) | |||
|
|
| 3 (50) | |||
|
|
| 2 (45) | |||
|
|
| 1 (55) | |||
|
|
| 1 (51) | |||
|
|
| 1 (51) | |||
|
|
| 2 (47) | 2 (42) | ||
Figure 5Functional response (percentage) accordig to functionality score: Score 1 (stable condition than at the beginning of treatment), Score 2 (increase joint range of motion but not full “restitutio ad integrum”), Score 3 (Complete functional recovery).
Figure 6Functionality (score) related to age of the sample.
Figure 7Functional response (percentage) according to functionality score and degree of injury.
Figure 8Average interval (days) among the first, second and third infiltration.
Figure 9Response to treatment in osteoarticular diseases treated (percentage). NR: no response, PR: partial response, CR, complete response.