Arthrosamid vs PRP: Streamlining Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a widespread, chronic condition where the cartilage cushioning your knee slowly wears away. This leads to pain, stiffness, and decreased mobility—affecting millions globally, particularly older adults. In outpatient clinics, it’s crucial to offer treatments that are straightforward to deliver and produce reliable results, giving patients faster and steadier relief. Two injectable options gaining traction for knee OA are platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and Arthrosamid . While both are used to ease symptoms, they differ in their mechanisms, preparation, and consistency of results. In this article, we’ll compare PRP and Arthrosamid , focusing on how they work, ease of use, predictability, and their use at the London Cartilage Clinic.

Understanding PRP in Knee Osteoarthritis

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy uses the patient’s own blood. A sample is drawn and then spun in a centrifuge to concentrate platelets, which are rich in natural growth factors that can encourage your body to repair tissue and calm inflammation. This concentrated PRP is then injected directly into the affected knee joint .

Research shows that PRP, particularly when prepared to be low in white blood cells (leukocyte-poor), can improve knee function and ease pain for up to two years. These benefits are typically measured using patient questionnaires, like the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). However, the method of preparing PRP varies—some clinics use a single centrifuge spin, others use two—which can impact quality and effectiveness. The actual concentration of platelets also plays a role in treatment success. Preparing PRP requires specialized equipment and trained staff, and its quality can vary from patient to patient, leading to less predictable outcomes.

Introducing Arthrosamid: a Novel Hydrogel Therapy

Arthrosamid approaches knee OA differently. It’s a gel-like substance, made mostly of water and a synthetic material called polyacrylamide hydrogel . Once injected into the knee, it acts as a shock absorber, restoring comfort and easy movement by supplementing the joint’s natural fluid.

The Arthrosamid procedure is simple and quick: a single injection under local anaesthetic, typically guided by ultrasound to ensure accurate placement. The gel comes preloaded in a syringe, so it requires little preparation or specialized equipment—making it perfect for outpatient settings.

Clinical studies have shown Arthrosamid can provide lasting pain relief for up to two years or more, with significant improvements reported by most patients. It has a strong safety record, with most side effects mild and short-lived, such as temporary injection site discomfort. The hydrogel integrates into the joint tissue, helping to preserve its cushioning effect over time.

Evaluating Simplicity: Procedure Workflow

When considering how easy each treatment is to deliver, Arthrosamid clearly stands out. PRP therapy involves several steps: drawing blood, centrifuging it (sometimes twice), preparing the PRP, and finally, injecting it into the knee. The process calls for dedicated machines and properly trained staff, making it more time-consuming and logistically challenging, especially for busy clinics.

By contrast, Arthrosamid arrives ready to use and can be administered in just a few minutes with local anaesthetic and ultrasound assistance. This efficient approach reduces the risk of technical errors and streamlines clinic operations. For outpatient centers handling a large number of patients, Arthrosamid ’s straightforward workflow can save both time and resources.

Assessing Predictability: Clinical Outcomes

Predictable results are important for clinicians and patients alike. Arthrosamid has demonstrated consistent improvement in pain and joint function scores, often sustained for up to two years. Its effectiveness appears similar across different age groups and levels of arthritis severity, making it easier for doctors to set patient expectations and plan care.

In comparison, results with PRP can vary significantly. Factors such as a patient’s age, overall health, and even the exact way PRP is prepared can all influence effectiveness. While recent studies suggest that cord blood-derived PRP may perform better than traditional PRP in some cases, outcomes still tend to be more unpredictable than those seen with Arthrosamid . The stable results and low rate of side effects make Arthrosamid a dependable choice for clinicians seeking reliability.

Professional Insight: Professor Paul Lee and the London Cartilage Clinic

Professor Paul Lee , a respected expert in orthopaedics and rehabilitation, leads the London Cartilage Clinic. The clinic provides a professional, patient-centered environment, offering both PRP and Arthrosamid according to the latest evidence and best practices. Their multidisciplinary team carefully evaluates each patient’s unique needs, ensuring the most appropriate treatment is selected.

This personalized and modern approach helps maximize symptom relief and functional improvement, delivering streamlined, positive patient experiences while staying mindful of current treatment limitations.

Conclusion

In summary, Arthrosamid is an appealing option for outpatient clinics thanks to its simple delivery and consistent, predictable results. PRP remains a valuable alternative, particularly for those seeking an autologous treatment, though its variable preparation methods and outcomes require more careful consideration.

Selecting the right treatment always depends on each patient’s circumstances, available resources, and clinical judgment. For tailored medical advice, it’s important to consult a qualified healthcare professional.