METHODS: This qualitative interview study was conducted among final year pharmacy students. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling until data saturation (i.e., when additional interviews didn't lead to any new themes). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and evaluated by thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-two final year pharmacy students were interviewed. Fifteen of them preferred the government sector as their choice training, three chose the community sector, two preferred private hospitals and another two preferred the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of the students gave positive feedback towards the liberalization of PRP training sites. Most of them chose clinical pharmacy as their preferred training site despite knowing of the saturation issue in government hospitals. This was mainly due to the opportunity to gain clinical experience and knowledge from the government sector. A small number of students preferred the pharmaceutical industry based on their personal interests and opportunities for career advancement.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students generally chose their PRP training site based on personal interest, future career advancement and working environment. A better understanding of career pathways and opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry by the students is required.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-eight patients will be randomised to receive under ultrasound guidance either a single injection of leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or normal saline. All patients will undergo a standardised hamstring rehabilitation programme under the supervision of a sports physiotherapist. Outcome data will be collected before intervention (baseline), and thereafter on a weekly basis. The primary outcome measure is the duration to return-to-play. It is defined as the duration (in days) from the date on which the injury occurred until the patients were pain-free, able to perform the active knee extension test and have regained hamstring muscle strength. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of pain intensity and the effect of pain on to day-to-day functions using the self-reported Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire. Both the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and thereafter once a week until return to play. Also, hamstring injury recurrence within the first 6 months after recovery will be monitored via telephone. The results of this study will provide insights into the effect of LR-PRP in muscle and may help to identify the best PRP application protocol for muscle injuries.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval were obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76844299.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflamed dental pulp-derived stem cells (iDPSCs) were treated with different concentrations of HPL and PRP (10% and 20%) followed by determination of viability using Alamar Blue assay. Expression of angiogenesis-, adhesion-, and inflammation-regulating genes was also analyzed using RT-qPCR array. Furthermore, expression of growth factors at protein level in the cell culture microenvironment was measured using multiplex assay.
RESULTS: Viability of iDPSCs was significantly (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases, including Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus, was conducted from 1946 until 2019 using a combination of search terms relating to this topic.
RESULTS: Ten manuscripts were identified as being relevant. The use of LPCs was mostly studied in in vitro and in vivo craniofacial bone regeneration models. Notably, one clinical study reported the utility of LPCs for guided bone regeneration prior to dental implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS: Lyophilization can enhance the inherent characteristics of PCs and extends shelf-life, enable their use in emergency surgery, and improve storage and transportation capabilities. In light of this, further preclinical studies and clinical trials are required, as LPCs offer a potential approach for clinical application in craniofacial tissue regeneration.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore a simple, easy, economical method of PRP preparation that is practical for clinical use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Sports Medicine Clinic at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Participants were healthy postgraduate students and staff at the Sports Medicine Department. The PRP was prepared using a single centrifugation technique. Leukocyte and platelet levels were compared with that of a whole blood baseline and a commercial preparation kit.
RESULTS: The PRP produced using this technique contained significantly higher mean platelet (1725.0 vs. 273.9 x 109/L) and leukocyte (33.6 vs. 7.7 x 109/L) levels compared with whole blood. There was no significant difference in the mean platelet and leukocyte levels between the PRP produced in this study and by a commercial PRP system.
CONCLUSIONS: A single-centrifugation protocol using readily available materials in a typical clinical setting could produce PRP of comparable quality to those of a commercial PRP production system.
METHODS AND DESIGN: A randomised, single blind controlled trial will be conducted. Twenty-eight patients aged 18 years and above with a recent grade-2 hamstring injury will be invited to take part. Participants will be randomised to receive either autologous PRP injection with rehabilitation programme, or rehabilitation programme only. Participants will be followed up at day three of study and then weekly for 16 weeks. At each follow up visit, participants will be assessed on readiness to return-to-play using a set of criteria. The primary end-point is when participants have fulfilled the return-to-play criteria or end of 16 weeks.The main outcome measure of this study is the duration to return-to-play after injury.
CONCLUSION: This study protocol proposes a rigorous and potential significant evaluation of PRP use for grade-2 hamstring injury. If proven effective such findings could be of great benefit for patients with similar injuries.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN66528592.
PURPOSE: (1) To present the evidence of platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of hamstring injuries, (2) evaluate the "best-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes, and (3) evaluate the "worst-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Two authors systematically reviewed the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with any discrepancies resolved by mutual consensus. The level of evidence was assessed per the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the quality of evidence by the Coleman Methodology Score. Meta-analysis by fixed effects models was used if heterogeneity was low (I2 < 25%) and random effects models if heterogeneity was moderate to high (I2≥ 25%). P values platelet-rich plasma group and 149 in the control group. Random-effects model for mean time to return to play that compared platelet-rich plasma + physical therapy to physical therapy alone non-significantly favored platelet-rich plasma + physical therapy (mean difference, -5.67 days). The fixed effects model for reinjury rates, which also compared platelet-rich plasma + physical therapy with physical therapy alone nonsignificantly favored platelet-rich plasma + physical therapy (risk ratio, 0.88). The best-case scenario fixed effects model for reinjury rates nonsignificantly favored platelet-rich plasma + physical therapy (risk ratio, 0.82). The worst-case scenario fixed effects model for reinjury rates nonsignificantly favored physical therapy alone (risk ratio, 1.13). The mean ± SD complication rate for either postinjection discomfort, pain, or sciatic nerve irritation was 5.2% ± 2.9% (range, 2.7% to 9.1%).
CONCLUSION: There has been statistically nonsignificant evidence to suggest that PRP injection ± PT reduced mean time to RTP or reinjury rates compared to no treatment or PT alone for hamstring injuries in a short-term follow-up. The complication profiles were favorable. Further studies of high quality and large cohorts are needed to better support or disprove the consensus of the systematic review and meta-analysis.