Filtering by
PRP and Prolotherapy are individual treatments that were even suggested and used in combination with stem cell therapies. Prolotherapy predates PRP as a chemical irritant therapy originally used to sclerose tissues. Prolotherapy is meant to stimulate platelet derived growth factors release to improve tissue healing response. Prolotherapy shows negligible efficacy improvements over corticosteroids, but may have underlying side effects from being an irritant. PRP is a more modern therapy for improved healing. Speculations state initial use was in an open heart surgery to improve healing post-surgery. PRP is created via centrifugation of patient blood to isolate growth factors by removing serum and other biological components to increase platelet concentration. PRP is comparable to corticosteroid injections in efficacy, but as an autologous application, there are no side effects making it more advantageous. Growth factors induce healing response and reduce inflammation. Growth factors stimulate cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and stimulate cellular response mechanism such as angiogenesis and mitogenesis. The growth factor stimulation of PRP and prolotherapy both assist stem cell proliferation. Additional research is needed to determine differential capacity to ensure multipotent stem cells regenerate the correct cell type from the increased differential capacity offered by growth factor recruitment. The application of combination therapy for stem cells is unsubstantiated and applications violate FDA ‘minimal manipulation’ guidelines.
Cities in the Global South face rapid urbanization challenges and often suffer an acute lack of infrastructure and governance capacities. Smart Cities Mission, in India, launched in 2015, aims to offer a novel approach for urban renewal of 100 cities following an area‐based development approach, where the use of ICT and digital technologies is particularly emphasized. This article presents a critical review of the design and implementation framework of this new urban renewal program across selected case‐study cities. The article examines the claims of the so‐called “smart cities” against actual urban transformation on‐ground and evaluates how “inclusive” and “sustainable” these developments are. We quantify the scale and coverage of the smart city urban renewal projects in the cities to highlight who the program includes and excludes. The article also presents a statistical analysis of the sectoral focus and budgetary allocations of the projects under the Smart Cities Mission to find an inherent bias in these smart city initiatives in terms of which types of development they promote and the ones it ignores. The findings indicate that a predominant emphasis on digital urban renewal of selected precincts and enclaves, branded as “smart cities,” leads to deepening social polarization and gentrification. The article offers crucial urban planning lessons for designing ICT‐driven urban renewal projects, while addressing critical questions around inclusion and sustainability in smart city ventures.`