Original Article
Characterization and Comparison of 5 Platelet-Rich Plasma Preparations in a Single-Donor Model

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.020Get rights and content

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the biological characteristics of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) obtained from 4 medical devices and a preparation developed in our laboratory using a single-donor model.

Methods

Ten healthy persons donated blood that was processed to produce PRP by use of 4 commercial preparation systems and a protocol developed in our laboratory. Volumes and platelet, white blood cell (WBC), and red blood cell concentrations were recorded. The platelet activation status was assessed by flow cytometry. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine the concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor AB, epidermal growth factor, and transforming growth factor β1. We calculated platelet capture efficiency, relative composition, and increase factors from whole blood in platelets and WBC, as well as platelet and growth factor (GF) doses, provided from each preparation.

Results

Leukocyte-rich PRP was obtained with RegenPRP (RegenLab, Le Mont-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland) and the Mini GPS III System (Biomet Biology, Warsaw, IN) and provides PRP with higher proportions of red blood cells, WBCs, and neutrophils than leukocyte-poor PRP obtained with the Selphyl System (Selphyl, Bethlehem, PA), Arthrex ACP (Arthrex, Naples, FL), and the preparation developed in our laboratory. The highest platelet and GF concentrations and doses were obtained with the Mini GPS III System and the preparation developed in our laboratory. Different centrifugation protocols did not show differences in the percentages of activated platelets. Finally, a positive correlation between platelet doses and all the GFs studied was found, whereas a positive correlation between WBC doses and GFs was found only for vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor.

Conclusions

In a single-donor model, significant biological variations in PRP obtained from different preparation systems were highlighted. The observed differences suggest different results for treated tissue and could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature.

Clinical Relevance

Our findings will help clinicians to choose a system that meets their specific needs for a given indication.

Section snippets

Different PRP Preparation Systems

Four commercial PRP separation systems and 1 preparation developed in our laboratory were selected for the study. The commercial preparations were the Selphyl System (Selphyl, Bethlehem, PA) and RegenPRP (RegenLab, Le Mont-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland), both using a gel separator system; the Mini GPS III System (Biomet Biology, Warsaw, IN), using a floating buoy separator system; and Arthrex ACP (Arthrex, Naples, FL), using a double-syringe system. The preparation developed in our laboratory was

Whole Blood Characteristics

Table 2 summarizes mean values of platelet and WBC concentrations and the relative composition of whole blood from the 10 healthy donors, which were all within the ranges of normal biological values.

Volume of PRP After Processing

The greatest volumes of PRP were obtained from the Selphyl System and Arthrex ACP, with 4.1 ± 0.43 mL and 4.03 ± 0.35 mL, respectively. ANOVA showed significant differences among the different systems (P = .0002) (Table 3), and pairwise analysis confirmed that the Selphyl System and Arthrex ACP

Discussion

As expected, significant differences have been highlighted among the different PRP preparations, which could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature and support a minimal characterization of PRP before injection. Thus our study supports the results of the meta-analysis by Sheth et al.29 that showed a large variability in the results obtained from PRP applications in the orthopaedic domain.

However, our approach differs from comparable studies in

Conclusions

In a single-donor model, significant biological variations in PRP obtained from different preparation systems were highlighted. The observed differences suggest different results for treated tissue and could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature. Our findings will help clinicians to choose a system that meets their specific needs for a given indication.

References (41)

  • N. Borregaard et al.

    Granules of the human neutrophilic polymorphonuclear leukocyte

    Blood

    (1997)
  • M. Slater et al.

    Involvement of platelets in stimulating osteogenic activity

    J Orthop Res

    (1995)
  • R.E. Marx

    Platelet-rich plasma (PRP): What is PRP and what is not PRP?

    Implant Dent

    (2001)
  • S. Werner et al.

    Regulation of wound healing by growth factors and cytokines

    Physiol Rev

    (2003)
  • D.J. Sánchez-González et al.

    Platelet-rich plasma peptides: Key for regeneration

    Int J Pept

    (2012)
  • O. Bausset et al.

    Formulation and storage of platelet-rich plasma homemade product

    Biores Open Access

    (2012)
  • GlobalData. Platelet rich plasma: A market snapshot. Available at:...
  • M. Sanchez et al.

    Intra-articular injection of an autologous preparation rich in growth factors for the treatment of knee OA: A retrospective cohort study

    Clin Exp Rheumatol

    (2008)
  • M. Franchini et al.

    Efficacy of platelet gel in reconstructive bone surgery

    Orthopedics

    (2005)
  • H.T. Hee et al.

    Do autologous growth factors enhance transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

    Eur Spine J

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this article.

    View full text