Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 405

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Platelet‐rich plasma intra‐articular injections for cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis: single‐ versus double‐spinning approach

Filardo, Giuseppe, Kon, Elizaveta, Pereira Ruiz, Maria Teresa, Vaccaro, Franca, Guitaldi, Rita, Di Martino, Alessandro, Cenacchi, Annarita, Fornasari, Pier Maria, Marcacci, Maurilio·2012·Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of two different approaches of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) production methods as intra‐articular injection treatment for knee cartilage degenerative lesions and osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The study involved 144 symptomatic patients affected by cartilage degenerative lesions and OA. Seventy‐two patients were treated with 3 injections of platelet concentrate prepared with a single‐spinning procedure (PRGF), the other 72 with 3 injections of PRP obtained with a double‐spinning approach. The patients were evaluated prospectively at the enrollment and at 2, 6, and 12 months’ follow‐up with IKDC, EQ‐VAS and Tegner scores; adverse events and patient satisfaction were also recorded. Results: Both treatment groups presented a statistically significant improvement in all the scores evaluated at all the follow‐up times. Better results were achieved in both groups in younger patients with a lower degree of cartilage degeneration. The comparative analysis showed similar improvements with the two procedures: in particular, IKDC subjective evaluation increased from 45.0 ± 10.1 to 59.0 ± 16.2, 61.3 ± 16.3, and 61.6 ± 16.2 at 2, 6, and 12 months in the PRGF group, and from 42.1 ± 13.5 to 60.8 ± 16.6, 62.5 ± 19.9, and 59.9 ± 20.0 at 2, 6, and 12 months in the PRP group, respectively. Concerning adverse events, more swelling (P = 0.03) and pain reaction (P = 0.0005), were found after PRP injections. Conclusions: Although PRP injections produced more pain and swelling reaction with respect to that produced by PRGF, similar results were found at the follow‐up times, with a significant clinical improvement with respect to the basal level. Better results were achieved in younger patients with a low degree of cartilage degeneration. Level of evidence: II.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00167-011-1837-x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 405

Metadata

Authors
Filardo, G., Kon, E., Pereira Ruiz, M. T., Vaccaro, F., Guitaldi, R., Di Martino, A., Cenacchi, A., Fornasari, P. M., & Marcacci, M.
Venue
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-12-28
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
2082-2091
ISSN
  • 0942-2056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7347
OpenAlex
W2086838304
Cited by
405
References
33
FWCI
24.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Platelet‐rich plasma intra‐articular injections for cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis: single‐ versus double‐spinning approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00167-011-1837-x
The paper
Filardo, G., Kon, E., Pereira Ruiz, M. T., Vaccaro, F., Guitaldi, R., Di Martino, A., Cenacchi, A., Fornasari, P. M., & Marcacci, M. (2012). Platelet‐rich plasma intra‐articular injections for cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis: single‐ versus double‐spinning approach. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1837-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.