International orthopaedics · 2025
Comparison of the effects of leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma following bone marrow stimulation technique on osteochondral lesions of the talus in athletes: a retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miura Taihei, Yeow Benny Ewe Boon, Jujo Yasuyuki, Iwashita Kosui, Sivasamy Parthiban, Okugura Kazuaki, Mori Yukinori, Komesu Kenta, Takao Masato
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a promising treatment for enhancing the outcomes of bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT) and has demonstrated efficacy in alleviating symptoms due to its biological properties. However, the role of leukocyte concentration in PRP remains unclear, particularly regarding cartilage regeneration. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and time to return to activity between leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) and leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) in OLT surgery.
METHODS: Data from 29 patients with ≥ two year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed: 18 who received LP-PRP and 11 who received LR-PRP with OLT surgery. The study assessed the timeline of return to activity and Self-Managed Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q) scores preoperatively and at three months, six months, and two years postoperatively.
RESULTS: The LP-PRP group resumed jogging and sports significantly earlier than the LR-PRP group (P = 0.03, P < 0.01). No patients in either group experienced complications. Both groups showed improved SAFE-Q scores at six months, but at two years, the LP-PRP group maintained significantly higher scores compared to their preoperative levels, whereas the LR-PRP group showed declines in some domains.
CONCLUSION: LP-PRP enabled an earlier return to sports compared with LR-PRP. Additionally, LP-PRP maintained good clinical scores two years after surgery. In contrast, the LR-PRP group showed some decline from their early postoperative peak, although absolute scores remained above preoperative levels. These findings suggest that LP-PRP may be an effective adjuvant treatment for OLT surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: Data from 29 patients with ≥ two year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed: 18 who received LP-PRP and 11 who received LR-PRP with OLT surgery. The study assessed the timeline of return to activity and Self-Managed Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q) scores preoperatively and at three months, six months, and two years postoperatively.
RESULTS: The LP-PRP group resumed jogging and sports significantly earlier than the LR-PRP group (P = 0.03, P < 0.01). No patients in either group experienced complications. Both groups showed improved SAFE-Q scores at six months, but at two years, the LP-PRP group maintained significantly higher scores compared to their preoperative levels, whereas the LR-PRP group showed declines in some domains.
CONCLUSION: LP-PRP enabled an earlier return to sports compared with LR-PRP. Additionally, LP-PRP maintained good clinical scores two years after surgery. In contrast, the LR-PRP group showed some decline from their early postoperative peak, although absolute scores remained above preoperative levels. These findings suggest that LP-PRP may be an effective adjuvant treatment for OLT surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.