Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Musculoskeletal Applications of Autologous Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-284
Author(s):  
Elisabeth R. Garwood ◽  
Christopher J. Burke ◽  
Laith M. Jazrawi ◽  
Ronald S. Adler
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Manimaran Kanakaraj ◽  
Sangeetha Manoharan ◽  
Sivashankaran Srinivas ◽  
Marudhamani Chinnannan ◽  
Avinash Gandhi Devadas ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 69-81
Author(s):  
Dmitriy A. Malanin ◽  
Vladimir D. Sikilinda ◽  
Andrei I. Gorbatenko ◽  
Maxim V. Demeshchenko ◽  
Il’ya A. Suchilin ◽  
...  

The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intraosseous injection in the treatment of patients with knee OA stages II-III. Materials and Methods. The multicenter randomized study involved 40 patients (27 women, 13 men, average age 67.07.8 years, BMI 32.74.8, duration of disease 17.33.7 months) with knee OA of stages II-III according to the Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) classification. Patients of the main (BMAC group) group (n = 19) underwent a single intraosseous injection of BMAC, in the comparison group (n = 21) a PRP injection (PRP group). The results were evaluated after 1, 3, 6, 12 months with the verbal rating scale (VRS), VAS, Leken and WOMAC scales. Results. Comparison of the results in the groups on the VRS showed that at an earlier time (3 and 6 months), the preferences of patients were in favor of the treatment of BMAC (65% and 55% positive reviews) before PRP (55% and 45% positive reviews), whereas after 12 months the differences were insignificant. Analysis of VAS indicators in patients of both groups indicated a more pronounced decrease in the severity of pain syndrome after BMAC intraosseous injection. The analysis of the Leken scale indicators showed in favor of BMAC throughout the entire observation period, the differences were most pronounced in the first 3 months of observation. The ratio of the values of the WOMAC index in both patients groups indicated statistically significant differences that persisted in all periods of follow-up, the increase in indicators occurred to a lesser extent after the introduction of BMAC compared with PRP. Conclusion. A single intraosseous BMAC injection has an advantage over a similar PRP injection in terms of pain, knee function and physical activity of patients at all follow-up periods. Both methods of treatment are equally safe.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2999-2999
Author(s):  
Martin Mistrik ◽  
Juraj Madaric ◽  
Andrej Klepanec ◽  
Ingrid Olejarova ◽  
Marcela Skrakova

Abstract Abstract 2999 Introduction: Autologous bone marrow cell application has been proposed as an alternative therapy in patients (pts) with critical limb ischemia (CLI), not eligible for endovascular or surgical revascularization, but the way of their administration is currently unresolved. The aim of our study is to compare intramuscular (i.m.) and intraarterial (i.a.) bone marrow blood (BMB) delivery. Methods: Fifty nine patients (median age 67 years, range 38 – 89; gender M :F = 50 :9) with advanced CLI (Rutherford category 5, 6) not eligible for revascularization underwent analgosedation with profolol and total of 240 ml of BMB from both posterior iliac crests were harvested and stabilized with heparin. Bone marrow aspirate was processed with SmartPreP2 Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate System (Harvest, Plymouth, MA) – gradient density centrifugation to provide 40 ml of BMB concentrate (BMBc) within 15–20 minutes. Patients were randomized to treatment with 40 ml of BMBc either using local i.m. or i.a. infusion. Primary end points were limb salvage and wound healing. Secondary end points included changes in transcutaneous oxygen pressure (tcpO2), quality of life questionnaire (EQ 5D), ankle-brachial index (ABI), and pain scale (0–10 scale). Patients with limb salvage and wound healing were considered as responders to BMBc therapy. Results: Fifty nine collected BMB contained median mononucleated cell number 35, 8 × 109/l (range 12, 5 – 79, 8) and CD34+ cells 237, 25 × 106/l (range 57, 2 – 694, 3). Processing of BMB reduced to volume from 240 ml to 40 ml (e.g. 6x) and increased concentration of mononucleated cells and CD34+ cells (2, 9x). According to the randomization BMBc was administered i.m. (24 patients) into the ischemic limb or by means of i.a. infusion (800ml/hour) through the catheter positioned into the popliteal artery (25 patients). Since procedure 41 patients could reach 180 days follow up, 4 patients died from unrelated reason to study and 37 patients were evaluable for response. Twenty seven of 37 had limb salvage (73%). There was significant improvement in tcpO2 (15±10 to 29±13mmHg, p<0.001), in pain scale (4.4±2.6 to 0.9±1.4, p<0.001) and EQ 5D (51±15 to 70±13, p<0.001), and significant decrease in Rutherford category of CLI (5.0±0.2 to 4.3±1.6, p<0.01). There were no differences among functional parameters in patients undergoing i.m. versus i.a. delivery. Responders (n=27) vs. nonresponders (n=10) received higher CD34+ cells amounts in the bone marrow concentrate (29±15×10^6 vs 17±12×10^6, p<0.05), but similar number of total nucleated cells (4.3±1.4×10^9 vs 4.1±1.2×10^9, p=0.66). Responders had significantly lower C-reactive protein level (CRP 18±28 vs 100±96 mg/l, p<0.05) and white blood cell counts (8.3±2.1×10^9/l vs 12.3×4.5×10^9/l, p<0.05) at the time of study procedure. Conclusions: Autologous bone marrow blood harvest and administration is safe. There is no difference in i.m. versus i.a. application, both methods of autologous BMB delivery are effective in pts with CLI. Higher CD34+ cell content in BMBc and lower degree of inflammation are associated with good response to BMB application. Funding of project “Transplantation of autologous bone-marrow stem cells in patients with critical limb ischemia” ITMS code 26240220023 is supported by Operational programme Research and Innovation from European Regional Development Fund. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1566-1572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debraj Howlader ◽  
U. Vignesh ◽  
Dichen P. Bhutia ◽  
Rahul Pandey ◽  
Sumit Kumar ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document