The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A European ESSKA‐ORBIT consensus. Part 1—Blood‐derived products (platelet‐rich plasma)

Abstract Purpose The aim of this European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) consensus is to provide recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve indications, decision‐making and administration‐related aspects when using blood‐derived orthobiologics (for simplicity indicated as PRP—platelet‐rich plasma—with PRP being the most common product) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods Leading European expert clinicians and scientists were divided into a steering group, a rating group and a peer review group. The steering group prepared 28 question—statement sets divided into three sections: PRP rationale and indications, PRP preparation and characterisation and PRP protocol. The quality of the statements received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high‐level scientific support) to B (scientific presumption), C (low‐level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). The question–statement sets were then evaluated by the rating group, and the statements scored from 1 to 9 based on their degree of agreement with the statements produced by the steering group. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the document was submitted to the peer review group who evaluated the geographic adaptability and approved the document. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to produce the official document. Results The literature review on the use of blood‐derived products for knee OA revealed that 9 of 28 questions/statements had the support of high‐level scientific literature, while the other 19 were supported by a medium‐low scientific quality. Three of the 28 recommendations were grade A recommendations: (1) There is enough preclinical and clinical evidence to support the use of PRP in knee OA. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8). (2) Clinical evidence has shown the effectiveness of PRP in patients for mild to moderate degrees of knee OA (KL ≤ 3). This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8.1). (3) PRP injections have been shown to provide a longer effect in comparison to the short‐term effect of CS injections. They also seem to provide a safer use profile with less potential related complications. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a very strong agreement (mean: 8.7). Six statements were grade B recommendations, 7 were grade C and 12 were grade D. The mean rating score was 8.2 ± 0.3. Conclusions The consensus group reached a high level of agreement on all the questions/statements despite the lack of clear evidence for some questions. According to the results from this consensus group, given the large body of existing literature and expert opinions, PRP was regarded as a valid treatment option for knee OA and as a possible first‐line injectable treatment option for nonoperative management of knee OA, mainly for KL grades 1–3. Level of Evidence Level II.