Poster 378: The Availability and Price of Orthobiologic Injections in the Chicagoland Area: A Market Assessment Study

Objectives: Orthobiologic therapies have recently gained popularity in orthopaedic surgery as potential treatment options that can be used to manage the symptoms of musculoskeletal conditions. However, market for these products remains unregulated by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving rise a wide range available yet untested products. There are growing concerns related patient safety product efficacy, but also regard amount money being charged providers treatments Thus, purpose this study was investigate current orthobiologic injections knee osteoarthritis large, metropolitan city determine 1) willingness disclose cost an injection prior appointment; 2) if disclosed; 3) cellular source advertised “stem cell” products; 4) whether there differences orthobiologics within outside sports medicine practices. Methods: Orthopaedic Chicagoland area were identified through American Society Sports Medicine (AOSSM) Arthroscopy Association North America (AANA) registries physicians seeing patients at least one location area. Non clinics (including chiropractors, pain management physicians, self-advertised “regenerative medicine” clinics) offering compiled using Yelp! Google search listings reviews containing following key words: “PRP” or “platelet-rich plasma” “platelet rich plasma,” “SCT” cells” “amniotic tissue injections” “adipose stem cell injections,” “BMAC” “bone marrow aspirate concentrate.” A single author [BLINDED] contacted every clinic via common telephone script, which modified from existing study. Data collected each site on types offered, price disclosed over phone, alternative they provided. Prices explicitly specified joint. Results: total 25 practices (comprising 80 AOSSM/AANA surgeons) 40 non offered either PRP, cell,” and/or BMAC phone (Table 1). no difference likelihood providing PRP (p = 0.698) 0.340). significantly more likely offer < 0.001). without appointment 0.269), 0.302), 0.528), what 0.302). While average not different between provider 0.238), higher 0.011) variable (F statistic 0.139; p 0.001) (Figure Similarly, 0.080; 0.025) clinics. Most commonly, included amniotic-based injections, currently discouraged distribution use based upon most recent FDA guidance document. Conclusions: When compared providers, charge greater per injection. Unfortunately, liberal terms face increased scrutiny FDA’s position cell-based therapies. Future studies should examine trends national scale assess compliance with regulations orthobiologics, well establish standards treatments. [Table: see text]