I've been looking to get some prp done for a knee.  From what I have researched, a minimum of 50 cc's is needed to really have any effect, as well as needing imaging to place the plasma back into the knee.  I have contacted various clinics and hospitals and asked about how much blood was drawn and if imaging was used to inject the plasma back into the knee.

 

I can't find a single clinic or hospital that withdraws at least 50 cc's and only a couple that drew 10-15 cc's used imaging.

 

Any leads on clinics or hospitals that actually draw at least 50 cc's and use imaging.  Autologus PRP would be preferred, but it not, at least a place that draws enough blood and uses imaging.

As far as I know, everyplace that does PRP does it autologously. I have not heard of PRP done any other way and can't envision why it ever would be.

 

(Be warned though that some stand alone clinics claiming to do PRP may in fact not really be doing so. They are not well regulated).

 

The amount of blood that needs to be taken depends on the site that will be injected and the reason (e.g. sports injury versus arthritis). 30 - 60 cc is usual but in some cases less might be OK.

 

I doubt whoever replied to your question at various hospitals even understood it. They may well have confused it with ordinary blood testing. Emailed inqueries are not responded to by people directly involved in the process of preparing PRP. In fact usually nto even responded to by medically trained people.

 

You need to discuss this face to face with the relevant provider.  I would worry a lot less about how many cc's are drawn and a lot more about how beneficial it is likely to be in your specific case, given the considerable cost involved.  And how much expereince the specific provider has had doing it.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.  Actually I have looked into this quite a bit, I've read many meta analysis research papers at google scholar, talked to people that have had this done in various countries etc.

 

BTW, I've found Malaysia to be much cheaper than what I was quoted here, including everyone in Malaysia saying they can use imaging, while in Thailand they use landmark.  FYI, using imaging has shown to be better according to research papers.  Here's one example.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29511701/