The Properties of 3 Different Plasma Formulations and Their Effects on Tendinopathic Cells

Abstract

Background:

Tendinopathies are attributed to failure of the healing process and inadequate tissue remodeling. Plasma injections can trigger regenerative responses by modifying the molecular microenvironment.

Purpose:

To examine the differences in the mitotic, chemotactic, anabolic, and inflammatory effects between leukocyte- and platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and platelet-poor plasma (PPP).

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

Tendinopathic cells were cultured in 3-dimensional (3D) hydrogels formed using PPP, PRP, and L-PRP. Cell migration was evaluated using a μ-Slide chemotaxis chamber with video microscopy. Proliferation was assessed using XTT assays. Expression of genes associated with matrix turnover, including type 1 collagen (COL1A1), COL3A1, aggrecan, decorin, fibronectin, matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1), MMP-3, A Disintegrin-Like And Metalloprotease With Thrombospondin Type 1 Motif proteins 4 (ADAMTS-4), and ADAMTS-5, was assessed using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Secreted inflammatory proteins, including interleukin (IL)–1β, IL-6, IL-8, monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1), and regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES), as well as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results:

Tendinopathic cells migrate at a higher velocity along L-PRP and PRP than along PPP gradients. PRP and L-PRP promote hypercellularity. PPP and PRP showed more pronounced anabolic properties, as demonstrated by enhanced COL1A1 and COL3A1 and reduced MMP-1 expression. Decorin, fibronectin, and aggrecan were downregulated in L-PRP compared with PPP and PRP. L-PRP and PRP were shown to be more proinflammatory than PPP in terms of IL-6 secretion, but cells in PPP showed MCP-1^high phenotype. CTGF secretion was significantly reduced in L-PRP compared with PPP and PRP.

Conclusion:

The main advantages of L-PRP and PRP use, compared with PPP, include their stronger chemotactic and proliferative properties. While PPP and PRP stimulate matrix anabolism, L-PRP is more proinflammatory. Emphasis should be placed on the temporal needs and biological characteristics of injured tendons, and plasma formulations need to be tailored accordingly.

Clinical Relevance:

Versatile systems allowing the preparation of different plasma formulations, such as PPP, PRP, or L-PRP, can help refine clinical applications by taking advantage of their different biological properties.