Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy in a two case series: no significant difference in effect between leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor PRP

BACKGROUND: There is a theoretical basis for the treatment of chronic tendinopathies by platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and it can, therefore, be considered a possible treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathies (CATs), even though the clinical evidence for the use is not clear and, in addition, there is a lack of treatment algorithms and it is unclear which type of PRP is most effective. The objective of this study was through the comparison of two case series to assess: 1) the effect of PRP on CAT and 2) if there is any difference in effect between leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) in the treatment of CAT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two separate series of achilles tenodinopathies treated with either LR-PRP or LP-PRP were evaluated with a natural experiment/quasi-experimental study design, with a short-term (2 months) and long-term (8–42 months) follow-up to assess the effect and stability of the treatment. In total, 84 patients with failed basic treatment for CAT for at least 6 months were treated with either Biomet’s GPS III recovery kit with LR-PRP (36 patients) or with Arthrex ACP LP-PRP (48 patients). RESULTS: The overall probability of reaching a minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of at least 30% reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) was in activity (63%) and during rest (81%), and for Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment Scale (VISA-A), it was 61%. There was no statistical difference in change of VISA-A score or VAS between the patients treated with LP-PRP and LR-PRP. CONCLUSION: PRP seems to be a possible treatment when all other treatment regimens have failed, with a reasonably high probability of reaching MCIC. The choice of either LR-PRP or LP-PRP seems to be up to personal preference as there were no significant differences between patients treated with LR-PRP and LP-PRP.