| Literature DB >> 35910465 |
Lingling Wang1, Luting Zhao2, Lianwei Shen3,4, Qilin Fang2, Zhenglei Yang1, Rongrong Wang1, Qing Wu1, Yulei Xie1,5.
Abstract
Background: Purified platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) is gradually being used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), and its sources are mainly divided into autologous and allogeneic blood. However, it is unclear whether autologous PRP is more effective or allogeneic PRP is superior. Objective: In this study, autologous and allogeneic P-PRP was injected at early stage of KOA in rabbits, and then the differences in the efficacy of the two P-PRPs against KOA were compared from several perspectives, including pathological histology and immunohistochemistry. Method: Experimental rabbits were divided into normal group (n = 8), model group (n = 8), autologous P-PRP group (n = 8), and allogeneic P-PRP group (n = 8) using a random number table method. The normal and model groups did not receive any treatment, and the autologous P-PRP and allogeneic P-PRP groups received intra-articular injections of autologous and allogeneic P-PRP, respectively, to observe the changes in the gross specimens of the knee joints of the experimental rabbits in each group. The histopathological changes of chondrocytes were also observed by HE-stained sections of articular cartilage, and the expression of chondrocytes Bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and Sox9 were detected by immunohistochemistry.Entities:
Keywords: BMP-2; SOX9; knee osteoarthritis; purified platelet-rich plasma; sox9 knee osteoarthritis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35910465 PMCID: PMC9334772 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.911468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Efficacy outcomes.
| Control | OA | Autologous PRP | Allogeneic PRP | Control vs. OA Adjusted | Control vs. autologous PRP Adjusted | Control vs. allogeneic PRP Adjusted | OA vs. autologous PRP Adjusted | OA vs. allogeneic PRP Adjusted | Autologous PRP vs. allogeneic PRP Adjusted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macroscopic rating | |||||||||||
| Articular cartilage | 0(0-0) | 2(2–2.75) | 1(1-1) | 2.5(2–3) |
| 0.122 | 0.659 | ||||
| Articular osteophyte formation | 0(0-0) | 2(1.25–2) | 1(1–1.75) | 2.5(2–3) | 0.267 | 0.267 | |||||
| Joint effusion formation | 0(0-0) | 2(2-2) | 0(0–1) | 2(2–3) | 0.445 | 0.553 | |||||
| Modified Mankin's scores | 0(0-0) | 11.5(10.25–12) | 2.5(1–4.75) | 9.5(8.25–10) | 0.106 | 0.206 | |||||
| Average absorbance value | |||||||||||
| Bone morphogenetic protein 2 | 19.97(7.16) | 12.09(4.25) | 70.43(8.52) | 33.58(16.70) | 0.815 | 0.078 | |||||
| Sox9 | 73.53(20.25) | 30.27(13.00) | 60.94(8.80) | 55.09(21.91) | 0.729 | 0.185 | 1 | ||||
Data were expressed as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range [IQR]). Adjusted P-value was applied when pairwise comparisons in the Kruskal–Wallis test were carried out by the Bonferroni method. Bold font indicates statistically signifificant difference of P < 0.05.
Figure 1Histological images and analysis of articular facet(femur) cartilage. (A) H&Estained sections of articular artilage. Scale bar 100 μm. (B) Cartilage destruction was assessed using the Mankin scoring system. All groups (n=8). Groups were expressed as *p<0.01 if significantly different compared control, #p<0.05 compared to OA, and ?P<0.05 compared to autologous PRP. H&E, hematoxylin and eosin; OA, osteoarthritis; PRP, platelet-rich plasma.
Figure 2(AB) Immunohistochemical analysis of BMP-2 in joint fluid. Scale bar 100 µm. All groups (n=8). Significant differences, if any, were indicated as *p<0.05 compared control, #p<0.05 compared to OA, and ?P<0.05 compared to autologous PRP.BMP-2, bone morphogeneic protein; OA, osteoarthritis; PRP, platelet-rich plasma.
Figure 3(AB) Immunohistochemical analysis of SOX-9 in joint fluid. Scale bar 20 µm. All groups (n=8). Significant differences, if any, were indicated as *p<0.05 compared control, #p<0.05 compared to OA, and ?P<0.05 compared to autologous PRP. OA, osteoarthritis; PRP, platelet-rich plasma.