
==== Front
Interv Pain Med
Interv Pain Med
Interventional Pain Medicine
2772-5944
Elsevier

S2772-5944(22)00002-4
10.1016/j.inpm.2022.100011
100011
Original Article
Effectiveness of intradiscal platelet rich plasma for discogenic low back pain without Modic changes: A randomized controlled trial
Schepers M.O.
Groot D. d.groot@rugpoli.nl
∗
Kleinjan E.M.
Pol M.M.
Mylenbusch H.
Klopper-Kes A.H.J.
Rugpoli Twente, De Eiken 3, 7491HP, Delden, the Netherlands
∗ Corresponding author. d.groot@rugpoli.nl
21 1 2022
3 2022
21 1 2022
1 1 10001117 11 2021
11 1 2022
11 1 2022
© 2022 The Author(s)
2022
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Objective

To determine if autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection into a degenerative intervertebral disc, without Modic changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), improve pain and function.

Design

Prospective, randomized controlled study.

Setting

Outpatient spine practice (Stichting Rugpoli, Netherlands).

Participants

Adults with chronic low back pain referred to Stichting Rugpoli, according to the Dutch General Practitioners Guidelines, unresponsive to conservative treatment, without Modic changes on MRI.

Methods

Provocation discography was performed to confirm the suspected disc was the source of pain. Participants were randomized to receive 1.0 ​cc intradiscal PRP (intervention) or 1.0 ​cc Saline with 0.2g Kefzol (control). Data on pain (Numeric Rating Scale), physical function (Roland Morris Disabilty Questionnaire, RMDQ), and participants’ general perceived health (SF-12) were collected at 1 week, 4 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, 9 months and 1 year. A repeated-measures analysis (mixed model) was used for comparing the outcomes of the groups.

Results

Of the initial 98 (49 intervention, 49 control) patients randomized, 89 (91%) (44 intervention, 45 control) with complete outcome data were analyzed. Groups were balanced at baseline. After twelve months no differences between groups were found in the average pain (improved 21/44 in intervention vs 16/45 in control, p ​= ​0.244), the disability scores (RMDQ minimal 3 points improvement 22/44 in intervention vs 24/45 in control, p ​= ​0.753) and the SF-12 (mean difference physical health −1.19, 95% CI -5.39 to 2.99, p ​= ​0.721, and mental health −0.34, 95% CI -3.99 to 3.29, p ​= ​0.834). One serious adverse event occurred (spondylodiscitis) after intervention.

Conclusion

Participants who received intradiscal PRP showed no significant improvement in pain or functionality compared to the control group at 1 year follow up.
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Chronic low back pain, a common condition that frequently lacks an exact etiology and a specific treatment, is defined as pain between the lowest rib and the upper buttock fold persistent for at least three months [1]. It is the leading cause of disability worldwide [[2], [3], [4]]. Provocative discography is used to confirm that intervertebral disc is the likely source of pain ([5]). Degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc [[6], [7], [8]], a process in which the cartilage dehydrates and the disc height decreases, is often associated with this diagnosis. Several proinflammatory mediators produced by degenerative discs ([9]) are believed to cause persistent inflammation of the discs’ nucleus and within the annular tears. Through these annular tears granulation tissue and free nerve endings can grow associated with low back pain [[10], [11], [12], [13]].

Degenerative changes may occur in the endplates (10, [14,15]), which can be seen on an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan as Modic Changes ([6,[16], [17], [18]]). There is a positive association between discography and Modic Changes type 1 and 2 ([19]). There is also increasing evidence that Modic Changes are related to a low grade infection ([20]).

There is no gold standard treatment for discogenic low back pain (3), and the options include minimal invasive interventions as well as fusion surgery or total disc replacement as a last resort [[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]]. In the last decades, biological treatment modalities like Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) have evolved ([27]). Growth factors released by these platelets are believed to stimulate healing. Examples of growth factors released by platelets are transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), insulin-like growth factor (ILGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF). Many of these growth factors play an important role in stimulating duplication, activation and growth of mesenchymal cells, such as osteoblasts, fibroblasts and endothelial cells. Although several previous studies showed positive effect of PRP for different musculoskeletal disorders, the effect on the intervertebral disc and its clinical outcomes (pain and functioning) are unclear.

The intervertebral disc is an avascular structure and as such has low concentrations of growth factors and impaired healing capabilities. Intradiscal injection of PRP is aimed at reducing the degenerative process and to promote healing. PRP contains growth factors and bioactive proteins that influence the healing of tendon, ligament, muscle, and bone ([28]). It was first used in 1987 in autologous transfusion support of cardiac surgery patients and subsequently used for other treatments [[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]]. PRP is blood derived. It is processed in a way (centrifuging) that high concentration platelets remain in the plasma and it releases growth factors in high concentrations when activated ([28,45,46]). A recent RCT showed promising results of PRP injections into a degenerated lumbar disc at eight weeks follow up ([47]). No major complications were reported in this trial but one case report described an infection after intradiscal PRP injection ([48]). Given the risks involved, it is important to demonstrate effectiveness of PRP in a randomized trial. Thus, the objective of our study was to determine if autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection into a degenerative intervertebral disc, without Modic changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), improve pain and function compared to control.

2 Materials and methods

After obtaining medical ethical review board approval (NL46021.044.13/ABR, 08-05-2014), the trial was conducted in Stichting Rugpoli (Delden, the Netherlands), a specialized multidisciplinary outpatient clinic for musculoskeletal disorders, specialized in low back pain treatment. The study is reported according to CONSORT statement. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.1 Study design

Prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial of patients with discogenic chronic low back pain without Modic Changes on MRI, treated with a PRP injection into the intervertebral disc. The study participants and research nurse assassing outcomes were blinded, but the performing physician was unable to be blinded because of the difference in viscosity between PRP and saline was clearly sensible.

2.2 Population

Adults with chronic low back pain referred to Stichting Rugpoli, according to the Dutch General Practitioners Guidelines, without Modic changes on the MRI, unresponsive to conservative treatment. Internal investigation at Stichting Rugpoli shows that 274 out of 500 patients with chronic low back pain present with lumbar degenerative disc changes. Conservative treatment including McKenzie therapy, load change and pain treatment (medication) results in improvement for approximately 34% of these patients after one year. However, approximately 66% do not respond enough to this conservative treatment. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria listed in Table 1, approximately 50% of this group is eligible for participation in the study. The rationale behind PRP in the degenerative disc is that it repairs the collagen injury and annular tear. Patients with Modic changes on the MRI were excluded from this RCT. There is increasing evidence that Modic changes are related to a low grade infection (20). For this specific condition there is a stepped care treatment protocol at Rugpoli including NSAID's, intradiscal dexamethasone injection and as a last step 100 days of antibiotic treatment.Table 1 In- and exclusion criteria.

Table 1Inclusion	Exclusion	
O Age between 18 and 65 years

o Pain (minimal VAS 5 Mean) for at least three months

o Pain nonresponsive to conservative treatment

o At least 50% disc height remaining on MRI or CT scan

o Positive result of provocative discography according to the SIS Guidelines.

	o Modic Changes

o Pregnancy

o Anticoagulants

o Systemic infections at injection site

o Contrast allergy

o Psychiatric disorder according to DSM 4 (screening with 4DKL questionnaire)

o Solid bony fusion resulting in inaccessible disc

o Severe spinal stenosis at corresponding disc level

o Bulging disc >5 ​mm, extrusions, or isolated fragments in the spinal canal

o Spondylolisthesis grade 2 or more

o Radicular/sciatic pain

	

Discography is used to confirm that a “suspected” degenerative disc is the cause for low back pain. Discography was performed according to the SIS guidelines. Baseline group differences between PRP ​+ ​and PRP- were assessed using covariance analysis.

2.3 Procedure

Patients included are asked to stop medication Aspirin and NSAID 24 ​h prior to treatment and to discontinue NSAID's for at least two months after the procedure. The minimum time between the provocative discography and the procedure is two weeks. All included patients signed the Informed Consent Form. After inclusion randomization takes place by computer using “Windows Version 6.0 of Randomization Program Rand.exe”. 30 Minutes prior to treatment a 32 ​cc blood sample is drawn from the patient with a 20 gauge needle. 3 ​cc Citrate is then added to this blood to bind the ionized calcium, in order to prevent clotting. If the patient is randomized for PRP ​+ ​further preparation takes place by the research doctor and a second Rugpoli employee for double check of the procedure. This employee is not the research nurse, for the purpose of blinding. For the PRP preparation the Smart PReP 2 procedure was used. The blood was processed using a centrifuge (Harvest Technologies Corporation, Plymouth, MA). The blood is centrifuged at 1000 RPM for 15 ​min in a specially designed capsule. This divides the plasma and platelets from the red and white blood cells. The resulting plasma still contains 5% red blood cells and 1% white blood cells. This plasma is again centrifuged, resulting in two layers. The upper layer consists of Platelet Poor Plasma, the lower layer is the Platelet Rich Plasma. This procedure results in plasma with 1.500.000/μl platelet concentration [49].

If the patient is randomized for PRP-, the research doctor prepares a syringe with 1 ​cc NaCl with 0.2g Kefzol. The prepared syringes are labelled with patient name, age and residence. The patient is blinded for the procedure by prone positioning in a way the preparation and administration of the injection are not visible. The treating physician cannot be blinded for the procedure due to obvious difference in viscosity between PRP+ and PRP-. The injection technique used at the Rugpoli is according to SIS guidelines. The single needle technique was used, and the procedure was performed without administration of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics. The procedure is performed without contrast to confirm the placement of the injectate. This rationale is that the contrast medium may interact with the PRP and thereby reduce its effectiveness. After the injection the patient is transported to a recovery room and observed for 1 ​h. During this time the patient remains in prone position. After 1 ​h the patient is mobilized and eventually discharged when the patient feels well enough. Patients are informed not to take NSAID's for at least two months. Follow up at one week consists of completing NRS and RMDQ questionnaires, either at the clinic or by telephone by the research nurse whom is not informed on which preparation has been injected. Also, the injection location is checked at this moment for signs of infection or inflammation. Further follow up questionnaires were completed and submitted online at 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 12 months.

2.4 Outcome measures

The primary outcome measures were changes in pain as measured with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) [50], and changes in disability as measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) [51]. Secondary outcome measures were changes in self-reported mental and physical health as measured with SF-12 [52]. These measurements were applied before the intervention (index) and at one year follow up. Measurement were repeated at 1 week, 4 weeks, 2, 4, 6 and 9 months as secondary time points. To blind the outcome measurements, the research nurse and the patient were not informed about the preparations injected.

2.5 Statistical analysis

A minimally clinical important change for pain was defined 2 points on the NRS scale, and for functioning 3 points on the RMDQ ([50,51]). Based on a previous RCT ([47]) decrease in pain to NRS 5 from 7 and decrease in disability to RMDQ 9 from 12 points was expected after 9 and 12 months. To detect this difference with the two-sample t-test at 90% power and p ​< ​0.05, approximately 80 participants (40 per group) were required ([53,54]). Allowing for 20% drop out we intended to recruit 100 participants. NRS pain score for average and worst pain, and functionality score as measured with RMDQ of both groups are continuous variables. Quantitative analysis was performed on these primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures were self-reported physical and mental health measured with SF-12. The Chi2-test was used for categorical data. Continuous data with normal distribution such as age were compared using the t-test and for the non-normal distribution the Mann-Whitley U test. Differences in outcome were measured at 1 week, 1,2,4,6,9 and 12 months.

3 Results

Between July 2014 and May 2018, 313 patients were assessed for inclusion by three interventional spine physiatrists at Stichting Rugpoli. Inclusion was based on the in- and exclusion criteria as listed in Table 1. Two hundred fifteen patients either did not meet the inclusion criteria, went for treatment at a different clinic, did not return for further treatment or were not willing to participate. A total of 98 patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized in two equal groups (49/49). Nine patients were excluded (five in PRP ​+ ​group and four in PRP- group). Reasons for exclusion were pregnancy [4], spondylodiscitis (1), deviating discography interpretation (1), repeated intradiscal procedure during follow up period (1) and surgical intervention during follow up period (2). Eighty-nine of the initial 98 included patients were analyzed; PRP+ [44] and PRP– [45]. A flow chart is shown in Fig. 1.Fig. 1 Study inclusion randomization and follow-up flow chart.

Fig. 1

For randomization “Windows Version 6.0 of Randomization Program Rand.exe” was used. Demographics are listed in Table 2.Table 2 Baseline characteristics of included participants.

Table 2	Intervention PRP+ (n ​= ​44)	Control PRP– (n ​= ​45)	
Age (mean/SD)	40.3/10.4	39.1/11.5	
Gender (female|male n/%)	28/63.6% | 16/36.4%	26/57.8% | 19/42.2%	
Multiple level intradiscal procedure (n ​= ​)	8 (18.2%)	9 (20%)	
RMDQ Mean/sd	12.636/5.3574	13.422/4.3978	
Average pain
Mean/sd	6.295/1.2310	6.022/1.4846	
Worts pain mean/sd	8.205/1.3221	8.200/1.2541	

No differences were found in baseline characteristics between both groups (Table 2). Mean age was 40.3(PRP+) versus 39.1(PRP-). There were more female patients in both groups; 28 out of 44 (64%/PRP+) and 26 out of 45 (58%/PRP-). Similar numbers for a multilevel procedure were seen in the PRP+ (n ​= ​8/18%) and PRP- (n ​= ​9/20%) group. Improvement in pain of at least two points (average/worst) was not significantly different between PRP+ and PRP- after twelve months. For average pain 21/44 (48%) in the PRP ​+ ​group (95% CI 34–62) achieved a minimal two points change in NRS compared to 16/45 (35%) in the PRP- group (95% CI 23–50). For worst pain this was 16/44 (36%) in the PRP ​+ ​group (95% CI 23–51) compared to 18/45 (40%) in the PRP- group (95% CI 27–55). No significant differences were found in the primary and secondary outcome measures (disability p ​= ​0.753, average pain p ​= ​0.244, worst pain p ​= ​0.724, using the Pearson Chi2; physical health p ​= ​0.721 and mental health p ​= ​0.834) (Table 3).Table 3 Primary and secondary outcomes; the number of patients achieving a minimum two points change in NRS for pain and the number of patients achieving a minimum 3 points change in RMDQ for disability.

Table 3	Intervention PRP+ (n ​= ​44)	Control PRP– (n ​= ​45)	p-value	
Primary outcome	
Average Paina	21	16	0.244	
Worst paina	16	18	0.724	
RMDQb	22	24	0.753	


	
Secondary outcomes	
SF-12 Physical health baseline vs 1 year	−1.19
95% CI -5.39 to 2.99		0.721	
SF-12 Mental health
Baseline vs 1 year	−0.34
95% CI -3.99 to 3.29		0.834	
a 2 points or more improvement on NRS rating scale.

b 3 points or more improvement on RMDQ scale.

As seen in Fig. 2a–c, average and worst pain scores are very similar at the different follow up moments. In the PRP ​+ ​group NRS score for average pain changed from 6.3 ​at baseline to 5.3 (−1.0) at one year, whereas in the PRP- group this changed from 6.0 to 5.1 (−0.9). Pain improvement at primary and secondary timepoints is shown in Table 4 as measured with the Mann-Whitney U test (Table 4). For functionality as measured with RMDQ the scores in the PRP ​+ ​group changed from 12.7 to 9.6 (−3.1) versus 13.4 to 10.1 (−3.3) in the PRP- group. Also, the secondary outcomes show similar changes in time between the PRP+ and PRP- groups.Fig. 2 Outcomes.

Fig. 2

Table 4 Pain Improvement Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 4Mann-Whitney U | test statistics | average pain	Mann-Whitney U	Wilcoxon W	Z	Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	
Categorical improvement average pain after 1 week	924,000	1914,000	−1358	0,175	
Categorical improvement average pain after 4 weeks	775,000	1678,000	−2608	0,009	
Categorical improvement average pain after 8 weeks	866,000	1856,000	−1369	0,171	
Categorical improvement average pain after 16 weeks	964,000	1954,000	−0,292	0770	
Categorical improvement average pain after 26 weeks	956,000	1946,000	−0,363	0716	
Categorical improvement average pain after 40 weeks	900,000	1935,000	−0,947	0344	
Categorical improvement average pain after 1 year	987,000	1977,000	−0,029	0977	
	
Mann-Whitney U | test statistics | worst pain	Mann-Whitney U	Wilcoxon W	Z	Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 1 week	836,000	1826,000	−2708	0,007	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 4 weeks	797,500	1700,500	−2371	0,018	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 8 weeks	867,000	1857,000	−1550	0,121	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 16 weeks	930,000	1920,000	−0,719	0472	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 26 weeks	945,000	1935,000	−0,506	0613	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 40 weeks	927,500	1962,500	−0,690	0490	
Categorical improvement worst pain after 1 year	935,000	1925,000	−0,598	0550	

One Serious Adverse Event occurred in this RCT (PRP+); spondylodiscitis after PRP treatment. This patient recovered with antibiotic treatment and surgical debridement.

4 Discussion

To our knowledge this is only the second RCT evaluating the clinical effectiveness of intradiscal PRP injections for patients with chronic discogenic low back pain without Modic changes on MRI.

The strength of this study is that it has higher number of participants compared to previous studies, and one year follow up is present for all participants without cross-over. In contrast with the positive results in the previous RCT [47], we did not observe clinically relevant changes in pain and functioning after intradiscal PRP injection. Given that our study had an a priori sample size estimation for a high level of statistical power to detect a small difference, our negative findings merit consideration as true absence of any clinical effect of PRP.

Inclusion criteria are similar in both studies and identical preparation of PRP was used. In the previous RCT however it is not mentioned if patients Modic changes on the MRI were excluded or not. A possible limitation of this RCT is that patients with Modic changes were excluded. However, the targeted tissue was considered to be the degenerated collagen and annular tear and not the degenerative changes in the endplates which could also be related to a low grade infection.

The PRP+ and PRP- injections were performed without intradiscal contrast because this might influence the PRP effectiveness. This may be considered to be a limitation as there is no fluoroscopic proof of the correct flow of the injectate. However, two weeks prior to the procedure a discography has been performed with contrast to visualize the disc and possible contrast leakage at the annular tear.

The previous study was a double-blind RCT. Our primary study design was also a double-blind RCT. However, the pilot study pointed out that blinding of the treating physician seemed impossible due to clearly sensible differences in viscosity between PRP+ and PRP-. For blinding purpose, a different control injection with similar viscosity to PRP ​+ ​may be considered for future research on this topic. Although the treating physician could not be blinded, both the patient and the evaluating nurse were blinded for the procedure.

Although only one adverse event has occurred (spondylodiscitis after PRP injection) this might raise concerns as the number of patients treated with PRP+ was 44. Other intradiscal therapies have shown very low adverse events, with less than 1 in 1000. In this RCT no intravenous antibiotics were used. The PRP ​+ ​preparation does not include prophylactic antibiotics whereas the PRP- includes 0.2 ​g Kefzol. This might explain the spondylodiscitis in the PRP ​+ ​group.

In a recent review paper and guideline issue for effective use of biologics in the management of low back pain, qualitative evidence for positive effect of PRP has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I to V), based on multiple moderate-quality observational studies and the previously mentioned RCT ([55]). Our study clearly has contradictive results. This is in line with several previous attempts to treat discogenic low back pain using minimal invasive procedures. Examples of such procedures are IDET, Nucleoplasty and Methylene Blue. At first these treatments seem very promising, however, the positive results mentioned in the first studies on such treatments are often difficult or impossible to reproduce [[56], [57], [58]].

Different types of PRP preparation have been described resulting in different concentrations of platelets, white blood cells, fibrin network and exogenous activators. In previous publications on PRP several classifications are proposed. These classifications are often based on the presence and concentration of platelets, white blood cells, fibrin network, and exogenous activators ([[59], [60], [61], [62]]). The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons made recommendations on the classification and use of PRP. This also includes a list of variables that may influence the growth factor profile of PRP ([63]). The three types of variables are defined as “Donor”, “Processing” and “Delivery”. Donor variables are gender, comorbidities, nutritional status and concurrent medications, including NSAID's. Processing variables are blood collection and storage conditions, spin protocol (speed, time), activation protocol (agent, concentration, timing) and storage. Delivery variables are form of delivery (gel, solution), timing of delivery in relation to isolation, timing of delivery in relation to activation and host factors (similar to donor factors), including injury chronicity.

In this study the blood used for PRP was drawn 30 ​min prior to intradiscal treatment and could be directly prepared. The platelet concentration derived from the centrifuge using the SmartPReP 2 procedure [49](Harvest Technologies Corporation, Plymouth, MA) is known to be 1.500.000/μl and the plasma contains 1% White blood cells. There was no further biochemical analysis of the PRP used in this RCT. In several musculoskeletal tissues PRP treatment has shown promising results but evidence for clinical improvement after intradiscal PRP administration is very limited. A possible explanation might be the fact that the intervertebral disc is an avascular structure and minimal blood supply might be necessary to achieve positive PRP results. Options for future research might include a combination of Mesenchymal Stem Cell therapy and PRP treatment at the same time. However, with lack of clear clinical evidence for both these treatment options a combination of both will likely be ineffective as well. At this time, many clinics provide intradiscal PRP injections as a treatment for discogenic low back pain. There are concerns that other biological treatments, such as Mesenchymal Stem Cell therapy, are being used in several clinics without clear proven effect on the outcome of such therapy. This study highlights the need for further investigation on the effect of intradiscal PRP injections. At this moment there is no clear evidence to support PRP intradiscal treatment as standard care.

5 Conclusion

In this single-blind, statistically powered RCT, participants who received intradiscal PRP showed no significant improvement compared to the control group at 1 year follow up.

Disclosures

There was no funding for this study. There is no conflict of interest for any of the participants in the study.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Professor K.S.Khan for reviewing the manuscript.
==== Refs
References

1 Wessels P. CBO-richtlijn Aspecifieke lage-rugklachten Huisarts Wet 47 5 2004 May 1 706 706
2 Hartvigsen J. Hancock M.J. Kongsted A. Louw Q. Ferreira M.L. Genevay S. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention Lancet 391 10137 2018 Jun 9 2356 2367 29573870
3 Foster N.E. Anema J.R. Cherkin D. Chou R. Cohen S.P. Gross D.P. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions Lancet 391 10137 2018 Jun 9 2368 2383 29573872
4 Geurts J.W. Willems P.C. Kallewaard J.-W. van Kleef M. Dirksen C. The impact of chronic discogenic low back pain: costs and patients' burden 2018 Pain Res Manag 4696180 2018
5 Walker J. El Abd O. Isaac Z. Muzin S. Discography in practice: a clinical and historical review Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 1 2 2008 Jun 69 83 19468876
6 Cheung K.M.C. Karppinen J. Chan D. Ho D.W.H. Song Y.-Q. Sham P. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals Spine 34 9 2009 Apr 20 934 940 19532001
7 Hancock M.J. Maher C.G. Latimer J. Spindler M.F. McAuley J.H. Laslett M. Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 16 10 2007 Oct 1539 1550
8 Verrills P. Nowesenitz G. Barnard A. Prevalence and characteristics of discogenic pain in tertiary practice: 223 consecutive cases utilizing lumbar discography Pain Med Malden Mass 16 8 2015 Aug 1490 1499
9 Burke J.G. Watson R.W.G. McCormack D. Dowling F.E. Walsh M.G. Fitzpatrick J.M. Intervertebral discs which cause low back pain secrete high levels of proinflammatory mediators J Bone Joint Surg Br 84 2 2002 Mar 196 201 11924650
10 Peng B. Hou S. Wu W. Zhang C. Yang Y. The pathogenesis and clinical significance of a high-intensity zone (HIZ) of lumbar intervertebral disc on MR imaging in the patient with discogenic low back pain Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 15 5 2006 May 583 587
11 Jensen T.S. Karppinen J. Sorensen J.S. Niinimäki J. Leboeuf-Yde C. Vertebral endplate signal changes (Modic change): a systematic literature review of prevalence and association with non-specific low back pain Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 17 11 2008 Nov 1407 1422
12 Schwarzer A.C. Aprill C.N. Derby R. Fortin J. Kine G. Bogduk N. The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic low back pain Spine 20 17 1995 Sep 1 1878 1883 8560335
13 Yang G. Liao W. Shen M. Mei H. Insight into neural mechanisms underlying discogenic back pain J Int Med Res 46 11 2018 Nov 4427 4436 30270809
14 Peng B. Hao J. Hou S. Wu W. Jiang D. Fu X. Possible pathogenesis of painful intervertebral disc degeneration Spine 31 5 2006 Mar 1 560 566 16508552
15 Peng B.-G. Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of discogenic low back pain World J Orthoped 4 2 2013 Apr 18 42 52
16 Cao P. Jiang L. Zhuang C. Yang Y. Zhang Z. Chen W. Intradiscal injection therapy for degenerative chronic discogenic low back pain with end plate Modic changes Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 11 2 2011 Feb 100 106
17 Modic M.T. Ross J.S. Lumbar degenerative disk disease Radiology 245 1 2007 Oct 43 61 17885180
18 Çevik S. Yılmaz H. Evaluation of the relationship between clinical symptoms and modic changes Cureus 12 2 2020 Feb 12 e6970
19 Herlin C. Kjaer P. Espeland A. Skouen J.S. Leboeuf-Yde C. Karppinen J. Modic changes—their associations with low back pain and activity limitation: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis [Internet] 2018 PLoS ONE Aug 1 [cited 2020 Mar 30];13(8). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070210/
20 Albert H.B. Sorensen J.S. Christensen B.S. Manniche C. Antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and vertebral bone edema (Modic type 1 changes): a double-blind randomized clinical controlled trial of efficacy Eur Spine J 22 4 2013 Apr 1 697 707 23404353
21 Willems P. Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion Acta Orthop Suppl 84 349 2013 Feb 1 35
22 Manchikanti L. Staats P.S. Nampiaparampil D.E. Hirsch J.A. What is the role of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar discogenic pain: a systematic review of comparative analysis with fusion Korean J Pain 28 2 2015 Apr 75 87 25852828
23 Manchikanti L. Hirsch J.A. An update on the management of chronic lumbar discogenic pain Pain Manag 5 5 2015 Sep 373 386 26255722
24 Phillips F.M. Slosar P.J. Youssef J.A. Andersson G. Papatheofanis F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review Spine 38 7 2013 Apr 1 E409 E422 23334400
25 Thavaneswaran P. Vandepeer M. Lumbar artificial intervertebral disc replacement: a systematic review ANZ J Surg 84 3 2014 Mar 121 127 23869616
26 Bydon M. De la Garza-Ramos R. Macki M. Baker A. Gokaslan A.K. Bydon A. Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Spinal Disord Tech 27 5 2014 Jul 297 304 24346052
27 Akeda K. Yamada J. Linn E.T. Sudo A. Masuda K. Platelet-rich plasma in the management of chronic low back pain: a critical review J Pain Res 12 2019 753 767 30881089
28 Foster T.E. Puskas B.L. Mandelbaum B.R. Gerhardt M.B. Rodeo S.A. Platelet-rich plasma: from basic science to clinical applications Am J Sports Med 37 11 2009 Nov 2259 2272 19875361
29 Rossi L.A. Piuzzi N.S. Shapiro S.A. Glenohumeral osteoarthritis: the role for orthobiologic therapies: platelet-rich plasma and cell therapies JBJS Rev 8 2 2020 Feb e0075
30 Molloy T. Wang Y. Murrell G. The roles of growth factors in tendon and ligament healing Sports Med Auckl NZ 33 5 2003 381 394
31 Schnabel L.V. Mohammed H.O. Miller B.J. McDermott W.G. Jacobson M.S. Santangelo K.S. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) enhances anabolic gene expression patterns in flexor digitorum superficialis tendons J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc 25 2 2007 Feb 230 240
32 Moraes V.Y. Lenza M. Tamaoki M.J. Faloppa F. Belloti J.C. Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12 2013 Dec 23 CD010071 24363098
33 Lyras D.N. Kazakos K. Agrogiannis G. Verettas D. Kokka A. Kiziridis G. Experimental study of tendon healing early phase: is IGF-1 expression influenced by platelet rich plasma gel? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 96 4 2010 Jun 381 387 20452307
34 Le Thua T.H. Thua T.H.L. Nguyen D.-T. Pham D.N. Le K.-L. Le Q.N.B. Mini-invasive treatment for delayed or non-union: the use of percutaneous autologous bone marrow injection Biomed Res Ther 2 11 2015 Nov 24 389 395
35 Taylor D.W. Petrera M. Hendry M. Theodoropoulos J.S. A systematic review of the use of platelet-rich plasma in sports medicine as a new treatment for tendon and ligament injuries Clin J Sport Med Off J Can Acad Sport Med 21 4 2011 Jul 344 352
36 Everts P.A.M. Devilee R.J.J. Oosterbos C.J.M. Mahoney C.B. Schattenkerk M.E. Knape J.T.A. Autologous platelet gel and fibrin sealant enhance the efficacy of total knee arthroplasty: improved range of motion, decreased length of stay and a reduced incidence of arthrofibrosis Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15 7 2007 Jul 888 894 17323096
37 Everts P.A.M. Knape J.T.A. Weibrich G. Schönberger J.P.A.M. Hoffmann J. Overdevest E.P. Platelet-rich plasma and platelet gel: a review J Extra Corpor Technol 38 2 2006 Jun 174 187 16921694
38 Hechtman K.S. Uribe J.W. Botto-vanDemden A. Kiebzak G.M. Platelet-rich plasma injection reduces pain in patients with recalcitrant epicondylitis Orthopedics 34 2 2011 Jan 1 92 21323296
39 Ali M. Mohamed A. Ahmed H.E. Malviya A. Atchia I. The use of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injections in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature J Ultrason 18 75 2018 332 337 30763018
40 Sánchez M. Anitua E. Delgado D. Sánchez P. Orive G. Padilla S. Muscle repair: platelet-rich plasma derivates as a bridge from spontaneity to intervention Injury 45 Suppl 4 2014 Oct S7 S14
41 Bielecki T. Gazdzik T.S. Szczepanski T. Benefit of percutaneous injection of autologous platelet-leukocyte-rich gel in patients with delayed union and nonunion Eur Surg Res Eur Chir Forsch Rech Chir Eur 40 3 2008 289 296
42 Vogrin M. Rupreht M. Dinevski D. Hašpl M. Kuhta M. Jevsek M. Effects of a platelet gel on early graft revascularization after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial Eur Surg Res Eur Chir Forsch Rech Chir Eur 45 2 2010 77 85
43 Edwards S.G. Calandruccio J.H. Autologous blood injections for refractory lateral epicondylitis J Hand Surg 28 2 2003 Mar 272 278
44 Kunze K.N. Hannon C.P. Fialkoff J.D. Frank R.M. Cole B.J. Platelet-rich plasma for muscle injuries: a systematic review of the basic science literature World J Orthoped 10 7 2019 Jul 18 278 291
45 Amable P.R. Carias R.B.V. Teixeira M.V.T. da Cruz Pacheco I. Corrêa do Amaral R.J.F. Granjeiro J.M. Platelet-rich plasma preparation for regenerative medicine: optimization and quantification of cytokines and growth factors Stem Cell Res Ther 4 3 2013 Jun 7 67 23759113
46 Passaretti F. Tia M. D'Esposito V. De Pascale M. Del Corso M. Sepulveres R. Growth-promoting action and growth factor release by different platelet derivatives Platelets 25 4 2014 252 256 23855408
47 Tuakli-Wosornu Y.A. Terry A. Boachie-Adjei K. Harrison J.R. Gribbin C.K. LaSalle E.E. Lumbar intradiskal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study Pharm Manag PM R 8 1 2016 Jan 1 10 quiz 10
48 Beatty N.R. Lutz C. Boachie-Adjei K. Leynes T.A. Lutz C. Lutz G. Spondylodiscitis due to Cutibacterium acnes following lumbosacral intradiscal biologic therapy: a case report Regen Med 14 9 2019 823 829 31423905
49 Dohan Ehrenfest D.M. Rasmusson L. Albrektsson T. Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) Trends Biotechnol 27 3 2009 Mar 1 158 167 19187989
50 Childs J.D. Piva S.R. Fritz J.M. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain Spine 30 11 2005 Jun 1 1331 1334 15928561
51 Roland M. Fairbank J. The roland-morris disability questionnaire and the oswestry disability questionnaire Spine 25 24 2000 Dec 15 3115 3124 11124727
52 Chiarotto A. Boers M. Deyo R.A. Buchbinder R. Corbin T.P. Costa L.O.P. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain Pain 159 3 2018 481 495 29194127
53 Benner A. Machin David Campbell Michael J. Fayers Peter M. Pinol Alain P.Y. Sample size tables for clinical studies second ed. 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd 494 495 Oxford, 1997. No. of pages: x+315. Price: £45. ISBN 0-86542-870-0. Stat Med
54 Zar J.H. Biostatistical analysis second ed. 1984 Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, N.J 718
55 Navani A. Manchikanti L. Albers S.L. Latchaw R.E. Sanapati J. Kaye A.D. Responsible, safe, and effective use of biologics in the management of low back pain: American society of interventional pain physicians (ASIPP) guidelines Pain Physician 22 1S 2019 S1 S74 30717500
56 Kallewaard J.W. Wintraecken V.M. Geurts J.W. Willems P.C. van Santbrink H. Terwiel C.T.M. A multicenter randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of intradiscal methylene blue injection for chronic discogenic low back pain: the IMBI study Pain 160 4 2019 Apr 945 953 30730862
57 Helm S. Ii Simopoulos T.T. Stojanovic M. Abdi S. El Terany M.A. Effectiveness of thermal annular procedures in treating discogenic low back pain Pain Physician 20 6 2017 447 470 28934777
58 Helm S. Hayek S.M. Benyamin R.M. Manchikanti L. Systematic review of the effectiveness of thermal annular procedures in treating discogenic low back pain Pain Physician 12 1 2009 Feb 207 232 19165305
59 Amable P.R. Carias R.B.V. Teixeira M.V.T. da Cruz Pacheco I. Corrêa do Amaral R.J.F. Granjeiro J.M. Platelet-rich plasma preparation for regenerative medicine: optimization and quantification of cytokines and growth factors Stem Cell Res Ther 4 3 2013 Jun 7 67 23759113
60 DeLong J.M. Russell R.P. Mazzocca A.D. Platelet-rich plasma: the PAW classification system Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc 28 7 2012 Jul 998 1009
61 Lubkowska A. Growth factor content in PRP and their applicability in medicine PubMed - NCBI [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648195
62 Harrison P. The use of platelets in regenerative medicine and proposal for a new classification system: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH J Thromb Haemostasis 16 9 2018 1895 1900 30099839
63 LaPrade R.F. Dragoo J.L. Koh J.L. Murray I.R. Geeslin A.G. Chu C.R. AAOS research symposium updates and consensus: biologic treatment of orthopaedic injuries J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24 7 2016 Jul e62 78 27227987
