Joshua S. Dines, MD, Phillip N. Williams, MD, Neal ElAttrache, MD, Stan Conte, ATC, Todd Tomczyk, ATC, Daryl C. Osbahr, MD, David M. Dines, MD, James Bradley, MD, and Christopher S. Ahmad, MD
Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. J. S. Dines reports that he is a paid consultant and a member of the Speakers Bureau for Arthrex. Dr. ElAttrache, Dr. Bradley, and Dr. Ahmad report that they are paid consultants for Arthrex. The other authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.
The present study had several weaknesses, several of which are inherent to PRP studies conducted so far. It was not a prospective, randomized controlled trial. It is important to note that PRP treatment in diseased tissue may have some drawbacks, as its success depends on the ability of healing tissue to use concentrated growth factors and cytokines to proliferate.35 Thus, a chronically injured ligament with depleted active cells may have a diminished response to PRP. Another limitation of this study is that we evaluated outcomes based on return to play using the Conway Scale, which is well reported but not validated. Despite the potential weaknesses of this outcome scale, it has become the benchmark for measuring the success of outcomes of UCL reconstruction. Furthermore, we did not measure patients’ satisfaction with the treatment. Players who could not return to their preinjury level of play may have considered the treatment a failure regardless of their ability to continue throwing. Last, MRI was not repeated to document ligament healing. We did not routinely perform a second MRI because we thought it would not affect treatment. Several series have found a high incidence of abnormal signal in baseball players’ UCLs. In this group of patients, the most important outcome is return to previous level of competition.
This study raised several questions. Is one PRP brand better than another? Should more than 1 injection be given? What is the ideal postinjection protocol? Clearly, larger, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to truly elucidate the potential role of PRP in the treatment algorithm for UCL injury. Nevertheless, in certain cases in which traditional conservative measures have failed and patients do not have the luxury of rehabilitating for 9 to 12 months after surgery, PRP may be a viable treatment option.
Conclusion
In this study, use of PRP in the treatment of UCL insufficiency produced outcomes much better than earlier reported outcomes of conservative treatment of these injuries. PRP injections may be particularly beneficial in young athletes who have sustained acute damage to an isolated part of the ligament and in athletes unwilling or unable to undergo the extended rehabilitation required after surgical reconstruction of the ligament.
