top of page

PRP vs BMAC for Cartilage Growth?

  • kparmstrong1
  • Jan 8
  • 2 min read

๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ด๐—ด๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐˜€ ๐—ฃ๐—ฅ๐—ฃ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—•๐— ๐—”๐—– ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ปโ€™๐˜ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ด๐—ฒ, ๐˜€๐—ผ ๐˜„๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ฑ๐—ผ ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ธ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐˜„๐—ถ๐—น๐—น?



Thereโ€™s 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 hereโ€™s the problem: patients hear โ€œ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฒ๐—บ ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—น๐˜€โ€ or โ€œ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜„๐˜๐—ต ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€โ€ 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 canโ€™t be unrung.



Layer on the fact that ๐—บ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ต-๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜†. When someone is writing a check out-of-pocket, expectations naturally climb higher.



The evidence tells us something more modest:



๐™‹๐™๐™‹: Meta-analyses show symptomatic improvement vs HA, but no consistent MRI cartilage regeneration (Dai 2017; Sax 2022).


๐˜ฝ๐™ˆ๐˜ผ๐˜พ: 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. Thatโ€™s the expectation gap.



So the tension is clear:



๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฑ, ๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜ฃ๐˜บ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜จ๐˜ฆ.


๐˜—๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ด ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜ฉ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ.


๐˜—๐˜ฉ๐˜บ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ต ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ข๐˜ฎ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ.



From where I sit, the real question is:



How do you present the value of PRP or BMAC without feeding the โ€œnew 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).


Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page