Abstract

To assess the healing of acute bilateral muscle injury in cases of bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using platelet-rich plasma (PRP) after tendon graft removal. The study included 12 cases of bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using semitendinosus and gracilis (STG) grafts. In the right knee, the STG graft was removed, and saline solution was applied; in the left knee, the graft was removed, and PRP was applied. Patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale, pre and postoperative isokinetic tests (5 months), and muscle area analysis. A slight difference in results was observed at 15 and 30 days on the PRP-treated side, but there was no variation in circumference and muscle strength. Due to the small sample size, the study will be continued to increase the number of cases, aiming for the publication of results.

Introduction

Musculotendinous injuries are the most common injuries resulting from competitive physical activity, ranging from contusions due to direct trauma with a natural progression toward healing, to severe musculotendinous ruptures that, even after specific surgical or non-surgical treatment, may lead to significant sequelae and early discontinuation of athletic activity. Overloading physical activity represents the primary factor for injury in competitive athletes, whether due to insufficient time for injury recovery or inadequate treatment of previous injuries.

Morgan et al. [1], in a study with 237 soccer athletes during the 1996 season in the USA, found that the most frequently injured muscle group was the hip adductors (53%), followed by the hamstrings (42%) and quadriceps (5%). The most common injuries in the hip region in sports are muscle injuries. They occur more frequently in bi-articular muscles during eccentric movements and can happen at the musculotendinous junction or in the muscle belly. Adductor muscle injuries of the thigh frequently occur in soccer, hockey, and American football [2].

In a prospective study conducted from 1992 to 1999 in Australian football, which included a total of 2255 games and 672 hamstring muscle injuries, 163 quadriceps injuries, and 140 injuries to the calf muscles, several risk factors for muscle injuries were identified. These risk factors included previous muscle injuries, age (except for quadriceps injuries), and quadriceps injuries were more frequent in the dominant lower limb (kicking leg) [3].

A hamstring muscle injury is the most common injury among sprinting athletes, often resulting in prolonged absence from the sport and an increased risk of re-injury [4–7].

A muscle injury occurs when the tension generated exceeds the tensile capacity of the muscle’s weakest element. These injuries most frequently occur at the myotendinous junction or within the muscle belly. Muscle injuries can be caused by excessive internal force production, excessive external stretching, or both. Several factors contribute to a higher likelihood of muscle injury: inadequate stretching, insufficient muscle strength or endurance, dyskinetic muscle contraction, insufficient warm-up, or inadequate rehabilitation of a previous injury [8–10].

Hassleman et al. [11] demonstrated that there is an injury threshold caused by the active stretching of rabbit muscles. Initially, the injury occurs in the muscle fibers, followed by injury to the connective tissue, but only after significant muscle damage. In this study, the injury occurred both at the musculotendinous junction and within the muscle belly.

During intense physical activity, eccentric contraction is responsible for the majority of muscle injuries. The injury occurs when a strong muscle contraction is combined with muscle stretching (eccentric). The muscles at the highest risk for injury are the biarticular muscles (those that cross two joints).

PRP represents a volume of autologous plasma with a platelet concentration above the normal value. Normally, platelet counts range between 150 000 platelets/microliter and 350 000 platelets/microliter, with an average of 200 000 platelets/microliter. For the purpose of stimulating tissue healing, PRP is expected to have a concentration of 1000 000 platelets/microliter in 5 ml of plasma [2, 3].

The mechanism behind PRP in regenerative medicine has been well investigated and includes the identification and concentration of growth factors and exosomes released. The benefits of PRP have been highly recommended and widely used in orthopedics and sports medicine, including the repair of injured skeletal muscle [12].

Certain growth factors are secreted by platelets, including PDGF (Platelet-Derived Growth Factor), PGAF (Platelet-Derived Angiogenic Factor), TGF-α (Transforming Growth Factor Alpha), IGF-α (Insulin-like Growth Factor), VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor), and EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor).

At the 5th Annual Hilton Head Workshop on Engineering Tissues in February 2001, it was suggested that TGF-α could be involved in fibrosis formation in muscle. Laboratory inhibition of TGF-α using suramin showed improvement in muscle structure after injury [13]. Additionally, clinical studies [11] have demonstrated that the use of PRP in muscle injuries reduced the average healing time from 22 days (in controls) to 16 days. Furthermore, meta-analysis studies have concluded that PRP improves pain in musculoskeletal injuries [14].

PRP is a potential treatment for some musculoskeletal diseases; however, the evidence of its efficacy has been highly variable, depending on the specific indication. Currently, due to restrictions on clinical use, PRP has been authorized only in scientific studies with approved ethics committees. Additional high-quality clinical trials with longer follow-up are crucial to shape our perspective on this treatment option [15].

Thus, this study aims to analyze the healing of acute muscle injuries associated with the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). It will involve patient follow-up and subsequently increase the number of cases in the study to provide more reliable research results.

Case series

This is a series of cases in which 12 patients with bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury were evaluated. The study was approved by the Brazilian platform CAAE 02091212.0.0000.5505. All patients underwent bilateral ACL reconstruction using semitendinosus and gracilis (STG) grafts. The graft from the STG was always harvested on the right side and soaked in saline, while on the left side, the graft was harvested and PRP (Magellan/Meditronic) was applied under fluoroscopy (Fig. 1). Patients responded to a postoperative pain questionnaire [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] at 15, 30, and 60 days postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging (Siemens 1.5 T) was performed after 3 months, and isokinetic testing (Biodex) was conducted before and after 5 months of surgery to assess healing and injury functionality.

(A) STG removal under image intensifier; (B) PRP device.
Figure 1

(A) STG removal under image intensifier; (B) PRP device.

All patients underwent a physiotherapy protocol (analgesia and range of motion exercises within pain limits). Radiologists and isokinetic evaluators were blinded to whether saline or PRP was used on each side.

Statistical analysis

Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were conducted for postoperative pain analysis, ANOVA for isokinetic peak torque values, and paired t-tests for muscle circumference values analysis.

Results

In the VAS of pain, a subtle difference was observed with less pain on the left side at 15 and 30 days, but no difference at 60 days. However, statistically significant differences in pain intensity between the right and left sides were not found at 15 days (P = 0.4290), 30 days (P = 0.0578), and 60 days (P = 0.5637) (Table 1).

Table 1

Patient assessments of pain intensity measured by the VAS by side

Side (n = 12)Assessment  
15 days30 days60 days
Right
  Mean (sd)6.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.4)0.5 (0.5)
  Median6.53.50.5
  Minimum – Maximum5–82–60–1
Left
  Mean (sd)6.1 (1.1)2.9 (1.2)0.4 (0.5)
  Median6.03.00.0
  Minimum - Maximum5–81–50–1
Right side × left side15d 30d
 
P = 0.4290
P = 0.0578
(Wilcoxon test)60dP = 0.5637
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.0003
Right
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0108
15d × 60dP = 0.0108
30d × 60dP = 0.0108
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.000
Left
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0103
15d × 60dP = 0.0106
30d × 60dP = 0.0111
Side (n = 12)Assessment  
15 days30 days60 days
Right
  Mean (sd)6.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.4)0.5 (0.5)
  Median6.53.50.5
  Minimum – Maximum5–82–60–1
Left
  Mean (sd)6.1 (1.1)2.9 (1.2)0.4 (0.5)
  Median6.03.00.0
  Minimum - Maximum5–81–50–1
Right side × left side15d 30d
 
P = 0.4290
P = 0.0578
(Wilcoxon test)60dP = 0.5637
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.0003
Right
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0108
15d × 60dP = 0.0108
30d × 60dP = 0.0108
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.000
Left
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0103
15d × 60dP = 0.0106
30d × 60dP = 0.0111
Table 1

Patient assessments of pain intensity measured by the VAS by side

Side (n = 12)Assessment  
15 days30 days60 days
Right
  Mean (sd)6.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.4)0.5 (0.5)
  Median6.53.50.5
  Minimum – Maximum5–82–60–1
Left
  Mean (sd)6.1 (1.1)2.9 (1.2)0.4 (0.5)
  Median6.03.00.0
  Minimum - Maximum5–81–50–1
Right side × left side15d 30d
 
P = 0.4290
P = 0.0578
(Wilcoxon test)60dP = 0.5637
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.0003
Right
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0108
15d × 60dP = 0.0108
30d × 60dP = 0.0108
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.000
Left
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0103
15d × 60dP = 0.0106
30d × 60dP = 0.0111
Side (n = 12)Assessment  
15 days30 days60 days
Right
  Mean (sd)6.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.4)0.5 (0.5)
  Median6.53.50.5
  Minimum – Maximum5–82–60–1
Left
  Mean (sd)6.1 (1.1)2.9 (1.2)0.4 (0.5)
  Median6.03.00.0
  Minimum - Maximum5–81–50–1
Right side × left side15d 30d
 
P = 0.4290
P = 0.0578
(Wilcoxon test)60dP = 0.5637
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.0003
Right
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0108
15d × 60dP = 0.0108
30d × 60dP = 0.0108
Side15d × 30d × 60dP = 0.000
Left
(FriedmanTest)15d × 30dP = 0.0103
15d × 60dP = 0.0106
30d × 60dP = 0.0111

Regarding the healing progression, statistically significant variations were found on both the right and left sides throughout the assessments (P = 0.0003 on both sides). On both sides, the reduction in pain intensity was significant on Day 30 compared to Day 15 (P = 0.0108 on the right and P = 0.0103 on the left) and on Day 60 compared to Day 30 (P = 0.0108 on the right and P = 0.0111 on the left).

In the isokinetic evaluation, there was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative Peak Torque (Table 2) and at 5 months postoperatively (Table 3) between the right and left sides (P = 0.8063), indicating similar behavior of Flexor Peak Torque over time (Table 4).

Table 2

Preoperative isokinetic assessment

 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
ACSG6865
VJ110117
MACL121131
NO6983
RS9899
HAC8371
JP105110
AC5124
AB100102
MB115122
CV7385
GB7067
 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
ACSG6865
VJ110117
MACL121131
NO6983
RS9899
HAC8371
JP105110
AC5124
AB100102
MB115122
CV7385
GB7067
Table 2

Preoperative isokinetic assessment

 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
ACSG6865
VJ110117
MACL121131
NO6983
RS9899
HAC8371
JP105110
AC5124
AB100102
MB115122
CV7385
GB7067
 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
ACSG6865
VJ110117
MACL121131
NO6983
RS9899
HAC8371
JP105110
AC5124
AB100102
MB115122
CV7385
GB7067
Table 3

Postoperative isokinetic assessment at 5 months

 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
BAY4030
ACSG5124
VJ6479
MACL130156
NO9488
RS9095
HAC7570
JP95100
AB105107
MB120124
CV7588
GB7572
 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
BAY4030
ACSG5124
VJ6479
MACL130156
NO9488
RS9095
HAC7570
JP95100
AB105107
MB120124
CV7588
GB7572
Table 3

Postoperative isokinetic assessment at 5 months

 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
BAY4030
ACSG5124
VJ6479
MACL130156
NO9488
RS9095
HAC7570
JP95100
AB105107
MB120124
CV7588
GB7572
 Peak torque flexor 60°/sPeak torque flexor 60°/s
NameRightLeft
BAY4030
ACSG5124
VJ6479
MACL130156
NO9488
RS9095
HAC7570
JP95100
AB105107
MB120124
CV7588
GB7572
Table 4

Patient assessments of peak torque flexor at 60°/s by side

Side (n = 8)Assessment
PreoperativePostoperative 5 monthsPost-pre variation
Right
 Mean (sd)87.4 (25.6)79.9 (28.6)−7.5 (20.4)
 Median90.582.5−8.0
Minimum - Maximum45–12140–130−46 – 25
Left
Mean (sd)89.0 (31.2)80.3 (41.8)−8.8 (21.8)
Median91.083.5−5.0
Minimum - Maximum36–13124–156−41–25
ANOVA
Side effectP = 0.8075
Time effectP = 0.2865
Side (n = 8)Assessment
PreoperativePostoperative 5 monthsPost-pre variation
Right
 Mean (sd)87.4 (25.6)79.9 (28.6)−7.5 (20.4)
 Median90.582.5−8.0
Minimum - Maximum45–12140–130−46 – 25
Left
Mean (sd)89.0 (31.2)80.3 (41.8)−8.8 (21.8)
Median91.083.5−5.0
Minimum - Maximum36–13124–156−41–25
ANOVA
Side effectP = 0.8075
Time effectP = 0.2865
Table 4

Patient assessments of peak torque flexor at 60°/s by side

Side (n = 8)Assessment
PreoperativePostoperative 5 monthsPost-pre variation
Right
 Mean (sd)87.4 (25.6)79.9 (28.6)−7.5 (20.4)
 Median90.582.5−8.0
Minimum - Maximum45–12140–130−46 – 25
Left
Mean (sd)89.0 (31.2)80.3 (41.8)−8.8 (21.8)
Median91.083.5−5.0
Minimum - Maximum36–13124–156−41–25
ANOVA
Side effectP = 0.8075
Time effectP = 0.2865
Side (n = 8)Assessment
PreoperativePostoperative 5 monthsPost-pre variation
Right
 Mean (sd)87.4 (25.6)79.9 (28.6)−7.5 (20.4)
 Median90.582.5−8.0
Minimum - Maximum45–12140–130−46 – 25
Left
Mean (sd)89.0 (31.2)80.3 (41.8)−8.8 (21.8)
Median91.083.5−5.0
Minimum - Maximum36–13124–156−41–25
ANOVA
Side effectP = 0.8075
Time effectP = 0.2865

There was no statistically significant effect of the Side factor (P = 0.8075), indicating similar averages of Peak Torque on both sides. No statistically significant effect of the Time factor was found (P = 0.2865), indicating similar averages of Peak Torque in the evaluations (Table 4).

As for the measured area in the posterior thigh musculature post-surgery, no statistically significant differences were found between the right and left sides in total muscle area (P = 0.6895), gracilis (P = 0.9083), semimembranosus (P = 0.7549), semitendinosus (P = 0.1733), and biceps (P = 0.2671) (Table 5).

Table 5

Patient assessments of muscle areas by side

Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Total
 Mean (sd)140.5 (7.3)139.6 (8.4)
 Median138.6138.9
 Minimum - Maximum132.1–155.0128.0–152.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.6895
Gracilis
 Mean (sd)5.3 (1.4)5.3 (1.3)
 Median5.84.9
 Minimum - Maximum3.5 – 6.83.5 – 7.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.9083
Semimembranosus
 Mean (sd)11.8 (1.8)11.6 (2.3)
 Median11.812.2
 Minimum - Maximum8.0 – 13.67.4 – 14.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.7549
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Semitendinosus
 Mean(dp)7.9 (2.3)7.2 (1.9)
 Median7.16.7
 Minimum - Maximum5.5 – 11.04.9 – 10.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.1733
Biceps
 Mean (sd)15.4 (2.2)16.0 (2.4)
 Median16.116.2
 Minimum - Maximum12.0 – 18.111.2 – 19.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.2671
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Total
 Mean (sd)140.5 (7.3)139.6 (8.4)
 Median138.6138.9
 Minimum - Maximum132.1–155.0128.0–152.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.6895
Gracilis
 Mean (sd)5.3 (1.4)5.3 (1.3)
 Median5.84.9
 Minimum - Maximum3.5 – 6.83.5 – 7.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.9083
Semimembranosus
 Mean (sd)11.8 (1.8)11.6 (2.3)
 Median11.812.2
 Minimum - Maximum8.0 – 13.67.4 – 14.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.7549
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Semitendinosus
 Mean(dp)7.9 (2.3)7.2 (1.9)
 Median7.16.7
 Minimum - Maximum5.5 – 11.04.9 – 10.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.1733
Biceps
 Mean (sd)15.4 (2.2)16.0 (2.4)
 Median16.116.2
 Minimum - Maximum12.0 – 18.111.2 – 19.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.2671
Table 5

Patient assessments of muscle areas by side

Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Total
 Mean (sd)140.5 (7.3)139.6 (8.4)
 Median138.6138.9
 Minimum - Maximum132.1–155.0128.0–152.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.6895
Gracilis
 Mean (sd)5.3 (1.4)5.3 (1.3)
 Median5.84.9
 Minimum - Maximum3.5 – 6.83.5 – 7.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.9083
Semimembranosus
 Mean (sd)11.8 (1.8)11.6 (2.3)
 Median11.812.2
 Minimum - Maximum8.0 – 13.67.4 – 14.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.7549
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Semitendinosus
 Mean(dp)7.9 (2.3)7.2 (1.9)
 Median7.16.7
 Minimum - Maximum5.5 – 11.04.9 – 10.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.1733
Biceps
 Mean (sd)15.4 (2.2)16.0 (2.4)
 Median16.116.2
 Minimum - Maximum12.0 – 18.111.2 – 19.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.2671
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Total
 Mean (sd)140.5 (7.3)139.6 (8.4)
 Median138.6138.9
 Minimum - Maximum132.1–155.0128.0–152.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.6895
Gracilis
 Mean (sd)5.3 (1.4)5.3 (1.3)
 Median5.84.9
 Minimum - Maximum3.5 – 6.83.5 – 7.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.9083
Semimembranosus
 Mean (sd)11.8 (1.8)11.6 (2.3)
 Median11.812.2
 Minimum - Maximum8.0 – 13.67.4 – 14.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.7549
Muscle area (n = 8)Side
RightLeft
Semitendinosus
 Mean(dp)7.9 (2.3)7.2 (1.9)
 Median7.16.7
 Minimum - Maximum5.5 – 11.04.9 – 10.0
P-value (paired t-test)0.1733
Biceps
 Mean (sd)15.4 (2.2)16.0 (2.4)
 Median16.116.2
 Minimum - Maximum12.0 – 18.111.2 – 19.2
P-value (paired t-test)0.2671

Discussion

In contrast to studying muscle injuries in animals, many isogenic (same genetic background) and similarly induced lesions, the study of muscle injuries in humans faces the primary challenge of dealing with heterogeneous injuries. This heterogeneity arises due to the difficulty in reproducing or comparing injuries, given their variations in size and location.

The most common injuries, especially in our field, are injuries to the posterior thigh muscles related to sports such as soccer, athletics, rugby, basketball, handball, etc. The frequency of this injury in a season can be up to 30% compared to 0.4 per season in the case of ACL injuries. Therefore, muscle injuries in these sports require better understanding regarding the origin of the injury and treatment [13].

The idea of studying patients who have undergone bilateral ACL reconstruction surgery arises from the fact that it represents similar muscle injuries performed in the same manner and on the same individual. After the removal of the semitendinosus graft, the healing of the local stump will begin, which can be monitored clinically, through imaging (MRI), and with an isokinetic dynamometer. In general, studies involving muscle injury healing in humans follow injuries of varying patterns, sizes, and locations [13].

Other studies have previously addressed the use of PRP in muscle injuries in humans. Wright-Carpenter’s work [16] showed a better return to sport in athletes after the use of PRP, but there was no control or comparative group with MRI or imaging methods. An isokinetic dynamometer was also not used.

The study by Hamid et al. [17] evaluated the effects of autologous PRP on the time to return to sports activities. Randomly selected patients with an average age of 18 years and grade II posterior thigh muscle injuries were studied. The conclusion was that there was an improvement in the time to return to sports activity, allowing for recommendations of this treatment option for grade II tendon injuries.

Analyzing the retrospective study by Wetzel et al. [18], which involved 17 posterior thigh muscle injuries, 12 injuries failed conservative treatment and were subsequently treated with PRP applied at the muscle origin, while the other 5 injuries were treated conservatively only. In the PRP-treated group, there was a reduction in the VAS and the Nirschl Phase Rating Scale, but both groups returned to the same level of activity without major complications.

Reurink et al. [19], published in 2014, as well as the study by Moca MJ published in 2015, both randomized controlled trials, showed no difference in the use of PRP regarding return to sports and muscle injury recovery.

Bubnov et al. [20] showed improvement in pain and range of motion up to the 28th day; after the 28th day, the results did not demonstrate significant importance in the use of PRP.

There are numerous studies showing the influence of PRP on muscle injuries in vitro or in animals. The work by Hamid et al. [17], a systematic review published in 2014, demonstrated accelerated healing in animals; however, evidence in human studies is still limited.

Like Yoshitsugu Takeda et al. [21], whose study shows the regeneration of the tendons of the goose foot (gracilis and semitendinosus) below the joint line, after they were removed for ACL reconstruction.

However, if PRP can help, what is the optimal time for application, the appropriate quantity, or the real function of the hematoma, for example? [18]. These questions remain unanswered and we need future studies for clarification.

Other factors that can also influence muscle healing and are present in PRP have been described recently: cytokines such as interleukins and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) [22].

Factors that could negatively influence the study of bilateral ACL reconstruction include the possibility of a systemic effect of PRP, in addition to the local effect, which could influence the other side of the thigh. This is demonstrated in the work by Schippinger et al. [23], where the systemic effect of intramuscularly applied PRP was evaluated by collecting blood samples. No significant increase in growth factors was found, except for TGF-beta2. However, little is known about the systemic influence of intramuscularly applied PRP in terms of distant effects.

The literature contains various studies demonstrating the theoretical benefits of PRP use in muscle injuries [22, 24, 25]; however, these do not present statistically significant results that support its use in clinical practice.

The limiting factor of this case series is the number of patients studied (12 patients / 24 infiltrations), given that bilateral ACL injury is not common. Additionally, the potential systemic effects of PRP are unknown, which could interfere with the results on the side considered as the control.

We believe that a very important factor was performing the treatment with PRP and saline on very similar muscle injuries using the same instrument. One of the main problems in studying muscle injuries is the heterogeneity of the injuries, which complicates comparison and the results obtained.

Conclusion

There was a slight difference (not statistically significant) at 15 and 30 days on the side where PRP was applied. No difference was observed in muscle circumference and strength at 3 and 5 months, respectively. Therefore, the decision was made to continue the study, increasing the number of cases, with the aim of publishing the obtained results.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Funding

None declared.

References

1.

Anderson
 
K
,
Strickland
 
SM
,
Warren
 
R
.
Hip and groin injuries in athletes
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2001
;
29
:
521
33
. .

2.

Orchard
 
JW
.
Intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for muscle strains in Australian football
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2001
;
29
:
300
3
. .

3.

Worrell
 
TW
,
Perrin
 
DH
.
Hamstring muscle injury: the influence of strength, flexibility, warm-up, and fatigue
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
 
1992
;
16
:
12
8
. .

4.

Agre
 
JC
.
Hamstring injuries: proposed etiological factors, prevention and treatment
.
Sports Med
 
1985
;
2
:
21
33
. .

5.

Burkett
 
LN
.
Causative factors in hamstring strains
.
Med Sci Sports
 
1970
;
2
:
39
42
. .

6.

Boivin
 
J
,
Tolsma
 
R
,
Awad
 
P
, et al.  
The biological use of platelet-rich plasma in skeletal muscle injuries and repairs
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2021
;
51
:
1347
55
. .

7.

Järvinen
 
TA
,
Järvinen
 
TL
,
Kääriäinen
 
M
, et al.  
Muscle injuries: biology and treatment
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2005
;
33
:
745
64
. .

8.

Le
 
ADK
,
Enweze
 
L
,
DeBaun
 
MR
, et al.  
Current clinical recommendations for use of platelet-rich plasma
.
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med
 
2018
;
11
:
624
34
. .

9.

Wright-Carpenter
 
T
,
Opolon
 
P
,
Appell
 
HJ
, et al.  
Treatment of muscle injuries by local administration of autologous conditioned serum: animal experiments using a muscle contusion model
.
Int J Sports Med
 
2004
;
25
:
582
7
. .

10.

Hamid
 
MS
,
Yusof
 
A
,
Mohamed Ali
 
MR
.
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for acute muscle injury: a systematic review
.
PloS One
 
2014
;
9
:
e90538
. .

11.

Wetzel
 
RJ
,
Patel
 
RM
,
Terry
 
MA
.
Platelet-rich plasma as an effective treatment for proximal hamstring injuries
.
Orthopedics
 
2013
;
36
:
e64
70
. .

12.

Reurink
 
G
,
Goudswaard
 
GJ
,
Moen
 
MH
, et al.  
Platelet-rich plasma injections in acute muscle injury
.
N Engl J Med
 
2014
;
370
:
2546
7
. .

13.

Bubnov
 
R
,
Yevseenko
 
V
,
Semeniv
 
I
.
Ultrasound guided injections of platelets rich plasma for muscle injury in professional athletes. Comparative study
.
Med Ultrason
 
2013
;
15
:
101
5
. .

14.

Takeda
 
Y
,
Kashiwaguchi
 
S
,
Matsuura
 
T
, et al.  
Hamstring muscle function after tendon harvest for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation with T2 relaxation time of magnetic resonance imaging
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2006
;
34
:
281
8
. .

15.

Schippinger
 
G
,
Fankhauser
 
F
,
Oettl
 
K
, et al.  
Does single intramuscular application of autologous conditioned plasma influence systemic circulating growth factors?
 
J Sports Sci Med
 
2012
;
11
:
551
6
.

16.

Borrione
 
P
,
Gianfrancesco
 
AD
,
Pereira
 
MT
, et al.  
Platelet-rich plasma in muscle healing
.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil
 
2010
;
89
:
854
61
. .

17.

Anitua
 
E
,
Sanchez
 
M
,
Nurden
 
AT
, et al.  
New insights into and novel applications for platelet-rich fibrin therapies
.
Trends Biotechnol
 
2006
;
24
:
227
34
. .

18.

Hammond
 
JW
,
Hinton
 
RY
,
Curl
 
LA
, et al.  
Use of autologous platelet-rich plasma to treat muscle strain injuries
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2009
;
37
:
1135
42
. .

19.

Moraes
 
VY
,
Lenza
 
M
,
Tamaoki
 
MJ
, et al.  
Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
 
2013
;
CD010071
. .

20.

Wasterlain
 
AS
,
Braun
 
HJ
,
Harris
 
AH
, et al.  
The systemic effects of platelet-rich plasma injection
.
Am J Sports Med
 
2013
;
41
:
186
93
. .

21.

Terada
 
S
,
Ota
 
S
,
Kobayashi
 
M
, et al.  
Use of an antifibrotic agent improves the effect of platelet-rich plasma on muscle healing after injury
.
J Bone Joint Surg Am
 
2013
;
95
:
980
8
. .

22.

Pochini
 
AC
,
Antonioli
 
E
,
Bucci
 
DZ
, et al.  
Analysis of cytokine profile and growth factors in platelet-rich plasma obtained by open systems and commercial columns
.
Einstein (Sao Paulo)
 
2016
;
14
:
391
7
. .

23.

Eppley
 
BL
,
Woodell
 
JE
,
Higgins
 
J
.
Platelet quantification and growth factor analysis from platelet-rich plasma: implications for wound healing
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
 
2004
;
114
:
1502
8
. .

24.

Setayesh
 
K
,
Villarreal
 
A
,
Gottschalk
 
A
, et al.  
Treatment of muscle injuries with platelet-rich plasma: a review of the literature
.
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med
 
2018
;
11
:
635
42
. .

25.

Sales
 
RM
,
Cavalcante
 
MC
,
Cohen
 
M
, et al.  
Treatment of acute thigh muscle injury with or without hematoma puncture in athletes
.
Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)
 
2019
;
54
:
6
12
. .

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.