Each treatment choice asks something different of your body

PRP uses blood, while BMAC uses marrow from your pelvis

PRP stands for platelet-rich plasma and uses a small sample of blood. Staff spin the blood to gather platelets, then put it into your aching joint. Brief soreness or swelling can follow the procedure. You'll want to ask when you can return to work.

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate is called BMAC and starts with a marrow draw at your pelvis. Staff spin the marrow and use it in the joint. You'll care for the spot on your pelvis as well as the joint. You may need help with driving or heavier work afterward.

QC Kinetix has medical providers who examine you and offer regenerative treatments using your blood or marrow. The clinic may also discuss concentrated PRP, which is another blood preparation. These are biologic therapies, so the material comes from your body instead of a manufactured drug. Some choices may be discussed before knee or hip surgery.

More steps don't mean more relief

People often ask whether marrow works better than blood. More work during a procedure doesn't prove that it'll help more. Your exam and the exact joint still guide the discussion. You'll compare recovery, cost, and the care you've tried.

Surgery remains worth discussing if an X-ray shows a badly worn joint. Getting a surgical opinion doesn't mean agreeing to surgery. The surgeon can explain which choices still fit and which don't. Then you can weigh possible relief against the recovery involved.

Sources

1. A network meta-analysis restricted to LARGE randomized trials (at least 100 patients per group; 57 RCTs, 22,795 participants, 18 intra-articular interventions) found treatment effects were consistently larger in the 35 high-risk-of-bias trials than in the 22 low/unclear-risk trials. In the main analysis excluding high-risk trials, triamcinolone had the highest probability of exceeding the minimal important difference at weeks 2 and 6; hyaluronic acid had no effect on pain (SMD -0.04, 95% CrI -0.19 to 0.11, 11 trials) but higher odds of dropouts due to adverse events (OR 2.01) and of serious adverse events (OR 1.86). The effects of 16 of the 18 interventions were smaller than the MID and most were consistent with placebo effects.

   Pereira TV, et al. — Effectiveness and safety of intra-articular interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis based on large randomized trials: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2024.08.014.

2. The BMJ meta-analysis of viscosupplementation pooled 169 trials (21,163 participants) and found clear evidence of small-study effects and publication bias. In the prespecified main analysis of 24 LARGE placebo-controlled trials (8,997 participants) hyaluronic acid reduced pain by SMD -0.08 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02), equivalent to 2.0 mm on a 100 mm scale - far below the -0.37 minimal important difference - and trial sequential analysis showed there has been CONCLUSIVE evidence of clinical equivalence to placebo since 2009. Fifteen large trials showed a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.49).

   Pereira TV, et al. — Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.. BMJ, 2022. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-069722.

3. RESTORE, the largest and most rigorously blinded placebo-controlled PRP trial in knee OA (n=288, participant-, injector- and assessor-blinded), gave three weekly injections of a commercial leukocyte-poor PRP or saline. At 12 months the change in knee pain was -2.1 vs -1.8 points (difference -0.4; 95% CI -0.9 to 0.2; P=.17) and the change in medial tibial cartilage volume was -1.4% vs -1.2% (difference -0.2%; P=.81). Twenty-nine of 31 prespecified secondary outcomes showed no between-group difference. The authors concluded the findings do not support the use of PRP for knee OA.

   Bennell KL, et al. — Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial.. JAMA, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415.

4. The largest head-to-head trial of cell-based orthobiologics to date randomised 480 patients with KL II-IV knee OA across four arms: autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate, autologous adipose stromal vascular fraction, allogeneic umbilical cord tissue-derived MSCs, and a corticosteroid injection control. At 12 months NONE of the three orthobiologic injections was superior to another or to the corticosteroid control on either co-primary endpoint (VAS pain, KOOS pain), and none of the four groups showed a significant change in MRI osteoarthritis score from baseline. No procedure-related serious adverse events were reported.

   Mautner K, et al. — Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial.. Nature Medicine, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02632-w.

5. A multicenter single-blind RCT randomised 200 patients 1:1:1 to a single injection of saline, hyaluronic acid or amniotic suspension allograft. ASA produced significant KOOS and VAS improvements maintained through 12 months with a 63.2% OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, no radiographic differences, and no concerning immunoglobulin or anti-HLA responses. Adverse events with ASA were comparable to HA, while NO treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in the saline group.

   Gomoll AH, et al. — Safety and Efficacy of an Amniotic Suspension Allograft Injection Over 12 Months in a Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial for Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee.. Arthroscopy, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.02.044.

6. FDA states verbatim of stem cell products, stromal vascular fraction (adipose-derived cells), umbilical cord blood, Wharton's jelly, amniotic fluid and exosome products: 'None of these products have been approved for the treatment of any orthopedic condition, such as osteoarthritis, tendonitis, disc disease, tennis elbow, back pain, hip pain, knee pain, neck pain, or shoulder pain.' The only FDA-approved stem cell products in the United States are blood-forming (hematopoietic progenitor) cells derived from umbilical cord blood, approved only for disorders of blood production, and there are currently NO FDA-approved exosome products.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration — Consumer Alert on Regenerative Medicine Products Including Stem Cells and Exosomes. FDA (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research), 2020.

7. FDA's patient and consumer notice on regenerative medicine states that it has received reports of BLINDNESS, TUMOUR FORMATION, neurological events, bacterial infections including life-threatening blood infections, unwanted immune reactions, and cells migrating and forming unintended tissue, following the use of unapproved regenerative medicine products - a list that explicitly includes stromal vascular fraction, amniotic fluid, Wharton's jelly, ortho-biologics and exosomes. It also warns that a product's presence on clinicaltrials.gov, or a firm's registration with FDA, does NOT mean the product is legally marketed.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration — Important Patient and Consumer Information About Regenerative Medicine Therapies. FDA (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research), 2021.

8. FDA's July 2020 final guidance 'Regulatory Considerations for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use' is the document that decides whether a given orthobiologic can be used without a licence: an HCT/P may be regulated solely under section 361 only if it is minimally manipulated AND intended for homologous use, among other criteria; otherwise it is a drug or biological product requiring an approved licence or an active investigational new drug application.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration — Regulatory Considerations for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. FDA Guidance Document, 2020.