Effect of intra-articular administration of autologous PRP and activated PRP on inflammatory mediators in dogs with osteoarthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the intra-articular use of platelet rich plasma (PRP) and bio-physically activated PRP (BPRP) on the inflammatory mediators for the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. The animals included in this study were 36 mix breed dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis in the stifle as a result of the clinical and radiological examinations. The dogs were randomly divided into three groups: PRP (platelet-rich plasma), BPRP (biophysically activated platelet-rich plasma) and control (given 0.9% isotonic saline). These three main groups were each further divided into two groups as single and double according to the number of intraarticular administrations. Joint fluid analyses, a clinical examination (Hudson Visual Analog Scale and Canine Brief Pain Inventory Tests) radiographic and ultrasonographic examinations were performed on days 1, 15, 30, 60, and 90 for each group. Genesis System 2 branded and BPRP preparation kits were used in this study. An ELISA method was used to measure the cytokines in charge of the inflammatory mediation (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α) in the synovial fluid samples. The records obtained from the walking and pain rating tests were subjected to a statistical analysis program and a Mann-Whitney U test was performed. The results of the ELISA were evaluated by a Tukey test. There was a significant difference between the single and double groups of the PRP administration on days 60 and 90 (P < 0.05) in the walking and pain scores. The double groups of the PRP had better results than the single groups. There was a significant difference between the single groups of the PRP and BPRP for the IL-10 on the 30th day (P < 0.05). In the single application groups, the BPRP was better than the PRP on day 30 in the IL-10 measurements. In the comparison of the single and double administration groups, there was significant difference between the single and double groups of the BPRP on day 90 (P < 0.05). The double groups of the BPRP had better results than the single groups. In addition, the biophysically activated PRP was found to be superior to the PRP for the IL-10 content. In conclusion, the efficacy of the PRP and BPRP was related to the degree of the osteoarthritis (OA). Especially the success rate in the acute OA patients was higher due to the anti-inflammatory activity of the BPRP. Moreover, the double administration groups gave more positive results than the single administration groups.