Classification of platelet concentrates (Platelet-Rich Plasma-PRP, Platelet-Rich Fibrin-PRF) for topical and infiltrative use in orthopedic and sports medicine: current consensus, clinical implications and perspectives.

Platelet concentrates for topical and infiltrative use - commonly termed Platetet-Rich Plasma (PRP) or Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) - are used or tested as surgical adjuvants or regenerative medicine preparations in most medical fields, particularly in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery. Even if these products offer interesting therapeutic perspectives, their clinical relevance is largely debated, as the literature on the topic is often confused and contradictory. The long history of these products was always associated with confusions, mostly related to the lack of consensual terminology, characterization and classification of the many products that were tested in the last 40 years. The current consensus is based on a simple classification system dividing the many products in 4 main families, based on their fibrin architecture and cell content: Pure Platelet-Rich Plasma (P-PRP), such as the PRGF-Endoret technique; Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Plasma (LPRP), such as Biomet GPS system; Pure Platelet-Rich Fibrin (P-PRF), such as Fibrinet; Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (L-PRF), such as Intra-Spin L-PRF. The 4 main families of products present different biological signatures and mechanisms, and obvious differences for clinical applications. This classification serves as a basis for further investigations of the effects of these products. Perspectives of evolutions of this classification and terminology are also discussed, particularly concerning the impact of the cell content, preservation and activation on these products in sports medicine and orthopaedics.

In vivo electroporation-mediated gene delivery to the beating heart

Gene therapy may represent a promising alternative strategy for cardiac muscle regeneration. In vivo electroporation, a physical method of gene transfer, has recently evolved as an efficient method for gene transfer. Here, we describe two protocols involving in vivo electroporation for gene transfer to the beating heart.

Optimization of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes in ureteral stones. Results of a prospective, randomized trial

PURPOSE Management of ureteral stones remains controversial. To determine whether optimizing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) delivery rates improves treatment of solitary ureteral stones, we compared outcomes of two SW delivery rates in a prospective, randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS From July 2010 to October 2012, 254 consecutive patients were randomized to undergo ESWL at SW delivery rates of either 60 pulses (n=130) or 90 pulses (n=124) per min. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate at 3-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included stone disintegration, treatment time, complications, and the rate of secondary treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to compare endpoints between the two groups. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess predictors of success. RESULTS The stone-free rate at 3 months was significantly higher in patients who underwent ESWL at a SW delivery rate of 90 pulses per min than in those receiving 60 pulses (91% vs. 80%, p=0.01). Patients with proximal and mid-ureter stones, but not those with distal ureter stones, accounted for the observed difference (100% vs. 83%; p=0.005; 96% vs. 73%, p=0.03; and 81% vs. 80%, p=0.9, respectively). Treatment time, complications, and the rate of secondary treatments were comparable between the two groups. In multivariable analysis, SW delivery rate of 90 pulses per min, proximal stone location, stone density, stone size and the absence of an indwelling JJ stent were independent predictors of success. CONCLUSIONS Optimization of ESWL delivery rates can achieve excellent results for ureteral stones.