Adding Regenerative medicine to your practice.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The regen crowd needs a hypothesis. And someone else to write the protocol.

There are no deep pockets in Regen. It's like Battle Star Galactica--Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest: a shining planet known as Earth...


Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
1649135576404.png


1649135728188.png

1649135838605.png
 
ugh...

1. not randomized. no sham injection or bone marrow harvesting done in control group.

2. patients got to choose to join the study. but the control group was made of those who chose not to join. ie inherent bias. not blinded in any way,

3. BMAC at multiple sites. "real world"...
Location of pain was the primary determinant for the pain generator selection for BMC administration. Midline pain was treated with intradiscal injections, paracentral pain was subjected to facet injections, and radicular pain was treated with epidural injections. If sacroiliac joint was suspected, it was also injected. Discography or other diagnostic blocks were not performed to identify the pain generator.
no specificity. shotgun approach.

4. total 80 patients, 40 in "control", 40 experimental. small group and authors note they were unclear of significance. 4 study patients dropped out. none of the controls did (and i am curious if they even knew they were in the study).
The small sample size limited our ability to obtain enough clinical data to draw strong conclusions, and future randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to prove the efficacy of MSCs.

5. groups were equal in most respects, but not in some key ones:
the BMI and opioid use was higher in the control group, but more patients in the study group had prior history of fusion surgery or laminectomy, severe facet hypertrophy, severe foraminal/central/lateral recess spinal stenosis, neural impingement, annular tears, and arachnoiditis either alone or in combination.
More patients in the control group were on opioids compared to the study group (100% vs 60%; P = 0.001)

this is what they said, based on their nonreported multivariant analysis for this claim:
Although more patients in the control group had a higher BMI and opioid use, these factors did not impact outcomes

6. more treatments:
Additionally, even though more patients in the investigational group received non-stem cell procedures during the study period, this did not contribute to the positive outcomes seen from the stem cell therapy.
and their reasoning:
Furthermore, a higher number of patients in the study group received non-BMC injections compared to the control group in the follow-up period. However, these procedures did not result in pain relief and hence we do not feel that these interventions were responsible for the positive outcomes we saw in the study group.

7. also noted in their own critique:
Firstly, since the procedure was not covered by third-party payers, the enrolled study patients had to pay for the procedure resulting in a possible motivational bias

8. this statement is confusing:
Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was seen at all time periods in the study group when compared to the control group; however, this difference was observed only at 1 and 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months when compared to baseline in the study group (Table 2).
so the treatment was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months compared to the starting point...


my take: fatter opioid dependent patients who couldnt afford expensive treatment were made in to the control group; essentially the control group are people preselected (? subconsciously) who wont get better.


this study will be used by needle jockeys who find desperate patients willing to shell out thousands of dollars to BMAC shotgun blast the entire spine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
ugh...

1. not randomized. no sham injection or bone marrow harvesting done in control group.

2. patients got to choose to join the study. but the control group was made of those who chose not to join. ie inherent bias. not blinded in any way,

3. BMAC at multiple sites. "real world"...

no specificity. shotgun approach.

4. total 80 patients, 40 in "control", 40 experimental. small group and authors note they were unclear of significance. 4 study patients dropped out. none of the controls did (and i am curious if they even knew they were in the study).


5. groups were equal in most respects, but not in some key ones:



this is what they said, based on their nonreported multivariant analysis for this claim:


6. more treatments:

and their reasoning:


7. also noted in their own critique:


8. this statement is confusing:

so the treatment was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months compared to the starting point...


my take: fatter opioid dependent patients who couldnt afford expensive treatment were made in to the control group; essentially the control group are people preselected (? subconsciously) who wont get better.


this study will be used by needle jockeys who find desperate patients willing to shell out thousands of dollars to BMAC shotgun blast the entire spine.

Since when is motivation to get better a bad thing?
 
anyone at Johns Hopkins have pockets? Funny.... i use the same centrifuge, but i didnt put that much effort into covering up the front of it with blue tape or blue graphics or whatever that is.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
you would think the rich JH dr would use gloves during an injection?!?!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
its pretty obvious that any academic institution should not be seen as marketing a particular product.

agree with the gloves part. even if not sterile. and that naked probe....
 
its pretty obvious that any academic institution should not be seen as marketing a particular product.

agree with the gloves part. even if not sterile. and that naked probe....
you probably arent familiar, but that centrifuge has zero brand markings on it. And anything you might be able to see would be too small to make out on that video.
 
so what exactly is he covering up, if there are no brand markings on it? patient information?


(in the ER, 20 years ago, the centrifuge i would spin down Hct did have a label on the front. but again, 20 years ago....)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
anyone at Johns Hopkins have pockets? Funny.... i use the same centrifuge, but i didnt put that much effort into covering up the front of it with blue tape or blue graphics or whatever that is.



“Platelets are vital proteins that promote cell function and immunity”,- does this guy even understand what he is talking about? And it’s Johns Hopkins?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
so what exactly is he covering up, if there are no brand markings on it? patient information?


(in the ER, 20 years ago, the centrifuge i would spin down Hct did have a label on the front. but again, 20 years ago....)
eppendorf makes the centrifuge......emcyte puts their label on it if you get it from emcyte, so maybe they use/used emcyte. I thought i heard something funny about what he said platelets did, but i wasnt really paying attention after the other gaffs

 
J Maxillofac Oral Surg
. 2022 Mar;21(1):168-175. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01351-w. Epub 2020 Mar 21.
A Comparative Analysis of Intra-articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Arthrocentesis in Temporomandibular Joint Disorders

Akash Rajput 1, Vishal Bansal 1, Prajesh Dubey 1, Ankit Kapoor 1

PMID: 35400915 PMCID: PMC8934820 (available on 2023-03-01) DOI: 10.1007/s12663-020-01351-w

Abstract
Objectives: Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) are progressive disorders which lead to development of arthralgia and functional disabilities of temporomandibular joint. The treatment of the TMDs is controversial; noninvasive and minimally invasive therapies have shown a success rate of 70 to 85% for its management. The objective of present study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and arthrocentesis in management of TMDs.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with complaint of reduced mouth opening, joint noise, pain, jaw deviation, not responding to medicinal treatment and coming under group II/III of RDC/TMD were included. Patients were randomly and equally divided in two groups. In group A, arthrocentesis was performed, whereas group B patients underwent intra-articular injections of PRP. Patients were clinically evaluated preoperatively to 12 months postoperatively.

Result: Both the groups showed significant improvement in painless mouth opening (P < 0.01), lateral movements towards unaffected side (P < 0.05) and reduction in pain complaint (P < 0.01). Arthrocentesis group also showed significant improvement in maximum mouth opening (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: On comparison, both groups were found to have effective treatment modality. However, arthrocentesis has higher success rate for pain elimination, and PRP is more effective in correction of joint noise and jaw deviation.

Keywords: Arthrocentesis; Minimally invasive surgery; PRP; Platelet-rich plasma; TMJ pain; Temporomandibular joint disorders.

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2020.
 
And this is why we cannot take them seriously.

Cureus

. 2022 Mar 8;14(3):e22974.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.22974. eCollection 2022 Mar.

Functional Outcome of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Intra-lesional Injection for Tennis Elbow - A Prospective Cohort Study​

Madhavan Paramanantham 1, Hariprasad Seenappa 1, Sagar Venkataraman 2, Arun H Shanthappa 2
Affiliations expand

Abstract​

Introduction Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is an autologous human plasma preparation with a higher platelet concentration. Injection of PRP were, found to be effective in treating tendinopathy and arthritis. A few studies only focused in using PRP injection in patients with tennis elbow. This study was conducted to access the functional outcome of PRP injection in tennis elbow patients. Methodology A prospective study was done from June 2020 to June 2021, at R. L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, India among 80 individuals diagnosed with tennis elbow. All individuals aged between 18 to 65 years of either gender and the pain symptoms not subsided with oral analgesics or physiotherapy were included in this study. We analysed all the patients with a MAYO elbow performance score and Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS) during the follow-up period. Results In total, 80 individuals participated in our study, of which the mean age of the participants was 45.54. There is statistical significance in the difference of means of pain score obtained using both VAS and MAYO score at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. There is high significant positive correlation of age with the pain scores at 12th week and 24th week after the procedure. Conclusion In tennis elbow patients, PRP injection shows an effective reduction in pain according to VAS and MAYO score and especially, younger age patients have shown more benefit in terms of pain reduction with PRP treatment.
Keywords: lateral epicondylitis; mayo score; prp injection; tennis elbow; vas.
Copyright © 2022, Paramanantham et al.
 
Cureus

. 2022 Mar 8;14(3):e22974.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.22974. eCollection 2022 Mar.

Functional Outcome of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Intra-lesional Injection for Tennis Elbow - A Prospective Cohort Study​

Madhavan Paramanantham 1, Hariprasad Seenappa 1, Sagar Venkataraman 2, Arun H Shanthappa 2
Affiliations expand

Abstract​

Introduction Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is an autologous human plasma preparation with a higher platelet concentration. Injection of PRP were, found to be effective in treating tendinopathy and arthritis. A few studies only focused in using PRP injection in patients with tennis elbow. This study was conducted to access the functional outcome of PRP injection in tennis elbow patients. Methodology A prospective study was done from June 2020 to June 2021, at R. L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, India among 80 individuals diagnosed with tennis elbow. All individuals aged between 18 to 65 years of either gender and the pain symptoms not subsided with oral analgesics or physiotherapy were included in this study. We analysed all the patients with a MAYO elbow performance score and Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS) during the follow-up period. Results In total, 80 individuals participated in our study, of which the mean age of the participants was 45.54. There is statistical significance in the difference of means of pain score obtained using both VAS and MAYO score at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. There is high significant positive correlation of age with the pain scores at 12th week and 24th week after the procedure. Conclusion In tennis elbow patients, PRP injection shows an effective reduction in pain according to VAS and MAYO score and especially, younger age patients have shown more benefit in terms of pain reduction with PRP treatment.
Keywords: lateral epicondylitis; mayo score; prp injection; tennis elbow; vas.
Copyright © 2022, Paramanantham et al.
Is it a study or list of 80 patients who had PRP after failing PT and NSAIDs?
Post one of the good studies showing support for PRP for tennis elbow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've yet to see PRP fail that Dx.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Just did one 2 months ago. Patient is a mechanic..90%better. Saved his job
 
Is it a study or list of 80 patients who had PRP after failing PT and NSAIDs?
Post one of the good studies showing support for PRP for tennis elbow.
Turk J Phys Med Rehabil

. 2021 Dec 1;67(4):490-501.
doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2021.6377. eCollection 2021 Dec.

Comparison of platelet-rich plasma and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis: A prospective, randomized-controlled study​

Tuğba Şahbaz 1, Cansın Medin Ceylan 2, Başak Çiğdem Karacay 3, Merve Damla Korkmaz 1, Demirhan Dıracoğlu 4
Affiliations expand
Free PMC article

Abstract​

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness or comparative therapeutic superiority of exercise, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on pain, grip strength and functional activities in chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE).
Patients and methods: Between January 2016 and February 2017, a total of 74 patients (14 males, 60 females; mean age; 49.7±7.6 years, range, 26 to 60 years) with chronic LE were included in this prospective, randomized-controlled study. All patients received stretching and eccentric strengthening exercises for three months. The patients were divided into three groups. The first group (Exercises group, n=24) was given home exercises. The second group (ESWT+Exercises group, n=25) received one session of ESWT added once a week for three weeks. The third group (PRP+Exercises group, n=25) received one session of PRP in addition to the exercise program. All patients were evaluated for pain by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), for functionality by Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), handgrip strength by a dynamometer, and extensor tendon thickness by ultrasonography (USG) at baseline and at one, two, three, and six months.
Results: A significant improvement was found in the VAS, DASH, PRTEE, handgrip strength values at six months compared to between in all groups (p<0.001). Extensor tendon thickness as assessed by USG indicated no significant difference (p>0.05). Regarding the VAS activity levels, there was a significant difference in the PRP+Exercises group compared to the Exercises group at six months of follow-up (p<0.001). The decrease in the DASH scores during six-month follow-up was significantly higher in the PRP+Exercises group compared to the Exercises group (p=0.004). For the PRTEE scores at six months, the PRP+Exercises group showed a statistically significant improvement than both Exercises (p<0.001) and ESWT+Exercises (p=0.007) groups.
Conclusion: In the treatment of chronic LE, PRP combined with exercise seems to be superior to exercise or ESWT in terms of pain and functionality in chronic LE patients.
Keywords: Chronic; exercise; extracorporeal shock wave therapy; lateral epicondylitis; platelet-rich plasma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the best data for PRP comes from treatment of lateral epicondylitis.



not to say that all patients who have PRP get benefit. one of the office staff here had such an injection with no benefit. (done by a sports ortho guy)

Turk J Phys Med Rehabil

. 2021 Dec 1;67(4):490-501.
doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2021.6377. eCollection 2021 Dec.

Comparison of platelet-rich plasma and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis: A prospective, randomized-controlled study​

Tuğba Şahbaz 1, Cansın Medin Ceylan 2, Başak Çiğdem Karacay 3, Merve Damla Korkmaz 1, Demirhan Dıracoğlu 4
Affiliations expand
Free PMC article

Abstract​

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness or comparative therapeutic superiority of exercise, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on pain, grip strength and functional activities in chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE).
Patients and methods: Between January 2016 and February 2017, a total of 74 patients (14 males, 60 females; mean age; 49.7±7.6 years, range, 26 to 60 years) with chronic LE were included in this prospective, randomized-controlled study. All patients received stretching and eccentric strengthening exercises for three months. The patients were divided into three groups. The first group (Exercises group, n=24) was given home exercises. The second group (ESWT+Exercises group, n=25) received one session of ESWT added once a week for three weeks. The third group (PRP+Exercises group, n=25) received one session of PRP in addition to the exercise program. All patients were evaluated for pain by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), for functionality by Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), handgrip strength by a dynamometer, and extensor tendon thickness by ultrasonography (USG) at baseline and at one, two, three, and six months.
Results: A significant improvement was found in the VAS, DASH, PRTEE, handgrip strength values at six months compared to between in all groups (p<0.001). Extensor tendon thickness as assessed by USG indicated no significant difference (p>0.05). Regarding the VAS activity levels, there was a significant difference in the PRP+Exercises group compared to the Exercises group at six months of follow-up (p<0.001). The decrease in the DASH scores during six-month follow-up was significantly higher in the PRP+Exercises group compared to the Exercises group (p=0.004). For the PRTEE scores at six months, the PRP+Exercises group showed a statistically significant improvement than both Exercises (p<0.001) and ESWT+Exercises (p=0.007) groups.
Conclusion: In the treatment of chronic LE, PRP combined with exercise seems to be superior to exercise or ESWT in terms of pain and functionality in chronic LE patients.
Keywords: Chronic; exercise; extracorporeal shock wave therapy; lateral epicondylitis; platelet-rich plasma.
concerns with this study -
1. such a distinct predominance in females.
2. study design was better than most, though not blinded. what effect did the actual procedure and performance of procedure have with percieved benefits? and what effect did the procedure have in the examiners in follow up? ("oh... you had the shot! tell me, how much better did it make you?")

there are better studies out there for PRP for LE. id use those.
 
the best data for PRP comes from treatment of lateral epicondylitis.



not to say that all patients who have PRP get benefit. one of the office staff here had such an injection with no benefit. (done by a sports ortho guy)


concerns with this study -
1. such a distinct predominance in females.
2. study design was better than most, though not blinded. what effect did the actual procedure and performance of procedure have with percieved benefits? and what effect did the procedure have in the examiners in follow up? ("oh... you had the shot! tell me, how much better did it make you?")

there are better studies out there for PRP for LE. id use those.

If you tried to Jedi-mind trick me into making my elbow feel better I'd be pissed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
if you tried injecting fairy dust in to my back, and charged me $800-2000, id be pissed.


as a matter of discourse - those who underwent the jedi-mind trick never remembered that it was done. those stormtroopers - they are still sure that those werent the droids they were looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Fwiw I injected my own medial meniscus. Bucket handle tear mechanical symptoms etc

Went weeks with it hoping tincture of time would resolve it. Eventually got mri and spoke with two friends from med school about scope and snip. Yes, I know the literature.

Decided on a whim to inject my own meniscus. It hurt a lot. Ultrasound guided. Did it on live Facebook during a Course.

It hurt a lot.

I couldn’t move my knee leg for a few minutes. Within a week the mechanical stuff went away and 40-50 percent pain. Another 10 days and I was 90 percent better. I re injured it many times, and I probably have a root tear and it hurts when I deep flex for more than a few seconds. I’ve re injected a few times and it hurts every time. I think it helps

Anecdote and observations are where a lot of medical research starts. we need better studies. But there are studies. We also are looking for better options that cutting out meniscus, or burning nerves to ignore pain
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Fwiw I injected my own medial meniscus. Bucket handle tear mechanical symptoms etc

Went weeks with it hoping tincture of time would resolve it. Eventually got mri and spoke with two friends from med school about scope and snip. Yes, I know the literature.

Decided on a whim to inject my own meniscus. It hurt a lot. Ultrasound guided. Did it on live Facebook during a Course.

It hurt a lot.

I couldn’t move my knee leg for a few minutes. Within a week the mechanical stuff went away and 40-50 percent pain. Another 10 days and I was 90 percent better. I re injured it many times, and I probably have a root tear and it hurts when I deep flex for more than a few seconds. I’ve re injected a few times and it hurts every time. I think it helps

Anecdote and observations are where a lot of medical research starts. we need better studies. But there are studies. We also are looking for better options that cutting out meniscus, or burning nerves to ignore pain

The First Catheterization​

Publish date: December 1, 2006

It was very painful. I felt that I had planted an apple orchard and other men who had gathered the harvest stood at the wall, laughing at me.” Dr. Werner Forssmann said these words toward the end of his life on his unexpected scientific exile after having laid the foundations of modern cardiology. Pacemaker Insertion, angioplasty, and valve repair might now be impossible without the daring of Dr. Forssmann, whose humble roots set into sharp relief the depth of his accomplishments.

Leading physicians in turn-of-the-century Europe said that investigation and treatment of conditions affecting the heart were anathema to mainstream medical society; the heart was off-limits. In 1896 Sir Stephen Paget went so far as to say that “no new method, and no new discovery, can overcome the natural difficulties that attend a wound of the heart.”
Enter Dr. Forssmann. Raised by in Berlin by his mother in a middle-class household after his father was killed in WWI, this young surgeon in training broached a bold idea with his surgeon-mentor Dr. Richard Schneider, a friend of the Forssmann family, in summer 1929.
Far from fantasy, Dr. Forssmann’s inspiration to perform what is now called cardiac catheterization came from a sketch in his physiology textbook depicting a long, thin tube being placed into a horse’s jugular vein and guided into the animal’s heart with balloon-assisted measurements of intracardiac pressures. Dr. Forssmann proposed to reach the heart of man—not through the jugular, but through the veins in the crease of the arm, which was more accessible. But how would this experiment happen? Dr. Forssmann elicited the help of Gerda Ditzen, a surgical nurse at Auguste Viktoria Home (Hospital), Eberswalde, near Berlin. In a month, Dr. Forssmann had convinced her to be his first human guinea pig. Dr. Forssmann, unbeknownst to Ditzen, planned on experimenting on himself. She held the keys to the closet, which was needed to obtain a long enough catheter. As nurse Ditzen was strapped to the surgical table in the small operating room, sweating from both excitement and the sweltering
heat, Dr. Forssmann walked the distance of the OR and began his self-experimentation. With an incision in his left elbow crease, Dr. Forssmann identified the predominant vein and inserted the 65-cm-long ureteral tube into his arm, feeling progressive painless warmth as the tube coursed along. He had determined this was the only tube thin and long enough to safely and adequately reach the endocardium. However he still needed her help to conceal the tube hanging out of his arm. They went—tube in place—to the fluoroscopic X-ray facility, where images were obtained in the hospital basement. The initial X-ray clearly indicated that the tube had not yet reached its destination. Dr. Forssmann forced the tube farther, resisting at one point the overwhelming urge to cough when the tube collided against his vein. When the tube was shown to be in the right auricle Dr. Forssmann had the technician snap the picture, finally obtaining the proof that he needed. Dr. Forssmann uneventfully removed the tube. The real incident involved in this daring experiment was to come: Dr. Forssmann had to face the reactions—not only of his mentor Dr. Schneider, but also the medical community. The majority was ostensibly displeased with his methods, rationale, and approach, believing them too dangerous. After repeated self-experiments, Dr. Forssmann learned that his self-cath procedure could be safely performed; he submitted his findings with fluoroscopic proof to the German medical community at large. At least one prior researcher, the surgeon Ernst Unger, repudiated Dr. Forssmann’s claim, saying he had done the same thing many years earlier, but without hard evidence to back his claim.
Despite the rising tide of opposition to his findings, Dr. Forssmann pushed on. His subsequent experiments with rabbits and dogs (and ultimately himself) proved that catheterization angiography could not be achieved with simply sodium iodide. He developed the use of groin catheterization to reach the inferior vena cava through the femoral veins. Dr. Forssmann’s further experiments in aortography proved unfruitful. By this time, he had decided to stop his self-experimentation, having reached his limits with exploration. Instead he decided to seek work as a local urologist in a small German farming community.

In 1956, Forssmann was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, which he shared with André Cournand, MD, and Dickinson W. Richards, MD, who were affiliated with Columbia University, New York City. When offered a job to head a German cardiovascular institute, Dr. Forssmann declined, citing his lack of knowledge about advancements in the field since his last self-experimentation in 1935. TH

Reference​

  1. Altman, Lawrence K. Who Goes First: The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine. New York: Random House; 1987.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Fwiw I injected my own medial meniscus. Bucket handle tear mechanical symptoms etc

Went weeks with it hoping tincture of time would resolve it. Eventually got mri and spoke with two friends from med school about scope and snip. Yes, I know the literature.

Decided on a whim to inject my own meniscus. It hurt a lot. Ultrasound guided. Did it on live Facebook during a Course.

It hurt a lot.

I couldn’t move my knee leg for a few minutes. Within a week the mechanical stuff went away and 40-50 percent pain. Another 10 days and I was 90 percent better. I re injured it many times, and I probably have a root tear and it hurts when I deep flex for more than a few seconds. I’ve re injected a few times and it hurts every time. I think it helps

Anecdote and observations are where a lot of medical research starts. we need better studies. But there are studies. We also are looking for better options that cutting out meniscus, or burning nerves to ignore pain

I injected my own knee twice, my wife's SIJ and hip, and my daughter's peroneal tendons after a ballet injury. Literally "skin in the game" with this technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fwiw I injected my own medial meniscus. Bucket handle tear mechanical symptoms etc

Went weeks with it hoping tincture of time would resolve it. Eventually got mri and spoke with two friends from med school about scope and snip. Yes, I know the literature.

Decided on a whim to inject my own meniscus. It hurt a lot. Ultrasound guided. Did it on live Facebook during a Course.

It hurt a lot.

I couldn’t move my knee leg for a few minutes. Within a week the mechanical stuff went away and 40-50 percent pain. Another 10 days and I was 90 percent better. I re injured it many times, and I probably have a root tear and it hurts when I deep flex for more than a few seconds. I’ve re injected a few times and it hurts every time. I think it helps

Anecdote and observations are where a lot of medical research starts. we need better studies. But there are studies. We also are looking for better options that cutting out meniscus, or burning nerves to ignore pain
My story isn’t new….I had a free flap after hurting myself playing baseball. Scoped and snipped stopped the popping with full flexion, but it felt loose and weak for a year. Did PRP and it was great immediately. I’ve injected mine a few times…..just medially IA….not inside the meniscus itself. Also cervical and lumbar facets when I do something I shouldn’t flaring up old baseball injuries. Also injected my girlfriends knee a couple times. It always helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My shoulder. Worked great.

Yall do vampire facials?
 
Quotes. Dwight Schrute : Through concentration, I can raise and lower my cholesterol at will. Pam Beesly : Why would you want to raise your cholesterol? Dwight Schrute : So I can lower it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Quotes. Dwight Schrute : Through concentration, I can raise and lower my cholesterol at will. Pam Beesly : Why would you want to raise your cholesterol? Dwight Schrute : So I can lower it.

whatever makes us feel better.

anyone popping hundreds of dollars in placeb-vitamins a month?

"those who need them can't afford them, those who can afford them don't need them"

but it's an unregulated multi-billion dollar industry. countless physicians sell them in their practices.
 

The First Catheterization​

Publish date: December 1, 2006

It was very painful. I felt that I had planted an apple orchard and other men who had gathered the harvest stood at the wall, laughing at me.” Dr. Werner Forssmann said these words toward the end of his life on his unexpected scientific exile after having laid the foundations of modern cardiology. Pacemaker Insertion, angioplasty, and valve repair might now be impossible without the daring of Dr. Forssmann, whose humble roots set into sharp relief the depth of his accomplishments.

Leading physicians in turn-of-the-century Europe said that investigation and treatment of conditions affecting the heart were anathema to mainstream medical society; the heart was off-limits. In 1896 Sir Stephen Paget went so far as to say that “no new method, and no new discovery, can overcome the natural difficulties that attend a wound of the heart.”
Enter Dr. Forssmann. Raised by in Berlin by his mother in a middle-class household after his father was killed in WWI, this young surgeon in training broached a bold idea with his surgeon-mentor Dr. Richard Schneider, a friend of the Forssmann family, in summer 1929.
Far from fantasy, Dr. Forssmann’s inspiration to perform what is now called cardiac catheterization came from a sketch in his physiology textbook depicting a long, thin tube being placed into a horse’s jugular vein and guided into the animal’s heart with balloon-assisted measurements of intracardiac pressures. Dr. Forssmann proposed to reach the heart of man—not through the jugular, but through the veins in the crease of the arm, which was more accessible. But how would this experiment happen? Dr. Forssmann elicited the help of Gerda Ditzen, a surgical nurse at Auguste Viktoria Home (Hospital), Eberswalde, near Berlin. In a month, Dr. Forssmann had convinced her to be his first human guinea pig. Dr. Forssmann, unbeknownst to Ditzen, planned on experimenting on himself. She held the keys to the closet, which was needed to obtain a long enough catheter. As nurse Ditzen was strapped to the surgical table in the small operating room, sweating from both excitement and the sweltering
heat, Dr. Forssmann walked the distance of the OR and began his self-experimentation. With an incision in his left elbow crease, Dr. Forssmann identified the predominant vein and inserted the 65-cm-long ureteral tube into his arm, feeling progressive painless warmth as the tube coursed along. He had determined this was the only tube thin and long enough to safely and adequately reach the endocardium. However he still needed her help to conceal the tube hanging out of his arm. They went—tube in place—to the fluoroscopic X-ray facility, where images were obtained in the hospital basement. The initial X-ray clearly indicated that the tube had not yet reached its destination. Dr. Forssmann forced the tube farther, resisting at one point the overwhelming urge to cough when the tube collided against his vein. When the tube was shown to be in the right auricle Dr. Forssmann had the technician snap the picture, finally obtaining the proof that he needed. Dr. Forssmann uneventfully removed the tube. The real incident involved in this daring experiment was to come: Dr. Forssmann had to face the reactions—not only of his mentor Dr. Schneider, but also the medical community. The majority was ostensibly displeased with his methods, rationale, and approach, believing them too dangerous. After repeated self-experiments, Dr. Forssmann learned that his self-cath procedure could be safely performed; he submitted his findings with fluoroscopic proof to the German medical community at large. At least one prior researcher, the surgeon Ernst Unger, repudiated Dr. Forssmann’s claim, saying he had done the same thing many years earlier, but without hard evidence to back his claim.
Despite the rising tide of opposition to his findings, Dr. Forssmann pushed on. His subsequent experiments with rabbits and dogs (and ultimately himself) proved that catheterization angiography could not be achieved with simply sodium iodide. He developed the use of groin catheterization to reach the inferior vena cava through the femoral veins. Dr. Forssmann’s further experiments in aortography proved unfruitful. By this time, he had decided to stop his self-experimentation, having reached his limits with exploration. Instead he decided to seek work as a local urologist in a small German farming community.

In 1956, Forssmann was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, which he shared with André Cournand, MD, and Dickinson W. Richards, MD, who were affiliated with Columbia University, New York City. When offered a job to head a German cardiovascular institute, Dr. Forssmann declined, citing his lack of knowledge about advancements in the field since his last self-experimentation in 1935. TH

Reference​

  1. Altman, Lawrence K. Who Goes First: The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine. New York: Random House; 1987.
They were all cowboys at the turn of the century. Think August Bier.

not only did he and his assistant do the first spinals on himself, he used cocaine, and apparently became addicted to cocaine.

oh yes, he apparently married one of his first patients……
 
@lobelsteve and @Ducttape are going to be pissed...

Intra-Articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma Is More Effective than Hyaluronic Acid or Steroid Injection in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized, Triple-Parallel Clinical Trial

by Dawid Szwedowski 1,2,*ORCID,Ali Mobasheri 3,4,5,6ORCID,Andrzej Moniuszko 7,Jan Zabrzyński 8ORCID andSławomir Jeka 9
1
Orthopedic Arthroscopic Surgery International (O.A.S.I.) Bioresearch Foundation, Gobbi N.P.O., 20133 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Provincial Polyclinical Hospital, 87-100 Torun, Poland
3
Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland
4
Department of Regenerative Medicine, State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Santariskiu 5, LT-08406 Vilnius, Lithuania
5
Departments of Orthopedics, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
6
Department of Joint Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
7
Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Unit, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, 02-507 Warsaw, Poland
8
Department of General Orthopedics, Musculoskeletal Oncology and Trauma Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland
9
Department and Clinic of Rheumatology and Connective Tissue Diseases, University Hospital No. 2, Collegium Medicum UMK, 85-168 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: JaiHong Cheng
Biomedicines 2022, 10(5), 991; Intra-Articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma Is More Effective than Hyaluronic Acid or Steroid Injection in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized, Triple-Parallel Clinical Trial
Received: 23 March 2022 / Revised: 22 April 2022 / Accepted: 23 April 2022 / Published: 25 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Molecular Research on Pathology, Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis)

Abstract
Purpose: To prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with hyaluronic acid (HA) and glucocorticosteroid (CS) control groups for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in a randomized, triple-parallel, single-center clinical trial. Methods: A total of 75 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups receiving a single injection of either leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (25 knees), hyaluronic acid (25 knees), or glucocorticosteroid (25 knees). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score was collected at baseline and 6, 12, and 26 weeks after treatment. Results: After 6 weeks of PRP administration, a decrease in the mean WOMAC value was observed in all three study groups. Three months after administration, the greatest decrease in the mean WOMAC value was obtained in the PRP group. The results in the HA and CS groups were similar (p = 0.681). In the one-way analysis of variance and post hoc analysis using the HSD Tukey test, a significantly greater improvement was shown by comparing the PRP and CS groups (p = 0.001), and the PRP and HA groups (p = 0.010). After intra-articular injection of CS, the reduction in pain was greatest 6 weeks after administration, and the mean value was the lowest among all groups. During subsequent visits, the value of the pain subscale increased, and after 6 months, it was the highest among the studied groups. Using the Wilcoxon paired test, no PRP effect was found to reduce stiffness at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.908). Functional improvement was achieved in all groups, i.e., a decrease in the value of this subscale 6 months after administration. The largest decrease was seen in the group that received PRP (p < 0.001) and then in the HA group. The smallest decrease among the investigated methods was shown in the CS group. Conclusions: Intra-articular injections of PRP can provide clinically significant functional improvement for at least 6 months in patients with mild to moderate KOA which is superior to HA or CS injections.

Keywords: knee osteoarthritis; injections; intra-articular; osteoarthritis; platelet-rich plasma; viscosupplementation; glucocorticosteroids


1650946341654.png

1650946410359.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
this is a study better than most. however...

- not sure why you have to be confrontational, about me being pissed...

i am not pissed at science. i am disturbed when someone uses poorly designed "studies" to support a treatment with insufficient scientific basis.

this study is better than 95% of what you have posted previously. but...


- second and more serious - the study was not blinded to either the proceduralist nor the patient. so they knew what they were getting/got. this will affect results. in addition, only the PRP group had blood drawn.

this fact limits full acceptance of the procedure. and while it is a good study - it is still limited. (and yes, the authors noted this limitation)



- also, i dont think that you have evidence to support the supposition that the treatment effect is large. i did not see a separate power analysis



- finally, it does suggest that the real world experience of steroid injections lasting only 3 months is spot on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
this is a study better than most. however...

- not sure why you have to be confrontational, about me being pissed...

i am not pissed at science. i am disturbed when someone uses poorly designed "studies" to support a treatment with insufficient scientific basis.

this study is better than 95% of what you have posted previously. but...


- second and more serious - the study was not blinded to either the proceduralist nor the patient. so they knew what they were getting/got. this will affect results. in addition, only the PRP group had blood drawn.

this fact limits full acceptance of the procedure. and while it is a good study - it is still limited. (and yes, the authors noted this limitation)



- also, i dont think that you have evidence to support the supposition that the treatment effect is large. i did not see a separate power analysis



- finally, it does suggest that the real world experience of steroid injections lasting only 3 months is spot on.

How does blinding affect cytokine MOA? That's how PRP works. It doesn't work like acupuncture through hairy-fairy "expectancy" effects or placebo. Everyone got a shot in the knee. The steroid was the placebo.

And, I'd be pissed if I were a steroid KOL or anti-Regen KOL. Many people want to see Regen fail because it's a threat to their livelihoods, employer's SOS and facility fees, etc. If you make $$ cooking/sous vide genicular nerves and doing DRG on "failed knee arthroplasty causalgia" the last you want to see is a cheap PRP injection save the day.

And, it's okay to be pissed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How does blinding affect cytokine MOA? That's how PRP works. It doesn't work like acupuncture through hairy-fairy "expectancy" effects or placebo. Everyone got a shot in the knee. The steroid was the placebo.

And, I'd be pissed if I were a steroid KOL or anti-Regen KOL. Many people want to see Regen fail because it's a threat to their livelihoods, employer's SOS and facility fees, etc. If you make $$ cooking/sous vide genicular nerves and doing DRG on "failed knee arthroplasty causalgia" the last you want to see is a cheap PRP injection save the day.

And, it's okay to be pissed.
Lamictal. It works for Bill Handel. Try it.
 
And, I'd be pissed if I were a steroid KOL or anti-Regen KOL. Many people want to see Regen fail because it's a threat to their livelihoods, employer's SOS and facility fees, etc. If you make $$ cooking/sous vide genicular nerves and doing DRG on "failed knee arthroplasty causalgia" the last you want to see is a cheap PRP injection save the day.
LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If someone told me that my rage against the anti-competitive, corrupt, and wasteful SOS/HOPD arbitrage system was imaginary, I'd be pissed.
seems like you are pissed off about a lot of hypothetical situations. its weird that you worry about getting pissed, rather than actually getting pissed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top