Abstract
We would like to share ideas on the publication in your journal, “Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for Chondral Defects: Results Using an In Vivo Rabbit Model.” 2 To better repair articular cartilage injury, Kato et al 2 confirmed that the autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has certain positive effects in cartilage injury repair through rabbit experiments. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to negatively regulate the treatment of ACI, providing data, information, and insights into the experiment.
The present research on PRP is quite hot, but this is the first report on the adverse regulatory effect of PRP. It provides a very valuable reference for the repair effect of PRP on rabbit shoulder joint cartilage injury in the future. It is understood from the article that the main effect of PRP treatment is pain relief through anti-inflammatory effects rather than through cartilage regeneration. 1 At the same time, we agree with the author's views in the article, such as the small sample size of this experiment, the single injection of PRP rather than regular multiple injections of PRP, the number and time of PRP centrifugation, and the timing of PRP injection should be further verified. Currently, relevant experiments have confirmed that PRP intra-articular injection has a significant effect on the repair and treatment of cartilage injury 3 and arthritis, 4 and the beneficial components of PRP have been analyzed. These biological therapy techniques will play a positive role in the repair of cartilage injury.
However, in the process of reading the article, we have encountered some questions, and we sincerely hope to communicate with the author. First, nonabsorbable nylon thread No. 6-0 was used to suture cartilage and the collagen membrane. As sutures are nonabsorbable, it remains unclear whether the presence of foreign bodies and the thickness of sutures affected the healing. Second, in the rabbit cartilage injury model, the diameter and depth of the cartilage defect, as well as whether the subchondral bone was exposed, had an impact on the healing speed. Third, PRP was administered before incision closure; thus, it is unclear whether PRP was lost during suture closure or whether the 50 μL amount itself was insufficient. These are the places where we have questions as we read.
The authors’ contributions to this field are invaluable to the research of regenerative medicine, and we are grateful that the authors have invested time and effort to advance our knowledge in this field. I look forward to reading more of the authors' research and learning from their expertise. Finally, we are grateful to the author for his contribution to this article, and we look forward to the author’s feedback and revision of our views.
Footnotes
The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.