PRP vs BMAC for Cartilage Growth?
- kparmstrong1
- Jan 8
- 2 min read

๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ด๐ด๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ฃ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ปโ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ, ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ธ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น?
Thereโs no question PRP and BMAC can deliver value. Studies consistently show pain relief, improved function, and in some cases slowing of degeneration. For the right patient, those gains matter.
But hereโs the problem: patients hear โ๐๐๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐น๐น๐โ or โ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐๐ต ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐โ and expect regeneration.....damaged cartilage restored good as new. The moniker "Regenerative Medicine" found it's way to patients ears long before we had tools capable of true regeneration. And once that bell was rung, it canโt be unrung.
Layer on the fact that ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ต-๐ฝ๐ฎ๐. When someone is writing a check out-of-pocket, expectations naturally climb higher.
The evidence tells us something more modest:
๐๐๐: Meta-analyses show symptomatic improvement vs HA, but no consistent MRI cartilage regeneration (Dai 2017; Sax 2022).
๐ฝ๐๐ผ๐พ: Systematic reviews highlight pain relief and functional gains, but no reproducible structural repair (Chahla 2016; Shapiro 2019).
Yes, a few small studies have reported MRI or arthroscopic signs of cartilage improvement, but aren't these exceptions, often without controls, and don't seem to shift the weight of evidence in meta-analyses.
Part of the confusion lies in how we use the word "Regenerative". In clinical and research settings, it can mean anything from modulating inflammation to slowing degeneration; valuable outcomes in themselves. But patients hear regenerative and think new tissue. Thatโs the expectation gap.
So the tension is clear:
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ฑ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฑ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ฆ.
๐๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ฑ๐ข๐บ ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ฉ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ.
๐๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ช๐ฅ๐จ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐จ๐ข๐ฑ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ข๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฎ.
From where I sit, the real question is:
How do you present the value of PRP or BMAC without feeding the โnew cartilageโ narrative?
Do we retire the word regenerative, or simply accept that patients will hear it that way and focus harder on expectation management?
Further reading: Dai 2017 (Arthroscopy), Sax 2022 (J Arthroplasty), Chahla 2016 (OJSM), Shapiro 2019 (Cartilage).



