Adverse Reactions and Clinical Outcomes for Leukocyte-Poor Versus Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Joint Diseases, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. RINGGOLD: 65542 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Research Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. RINGGOLD: 35017 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Madisesang Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2021;9(6):23259671211011948
Full text from:
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained attention as a therapeutic option for knee osteoarthritis; however, its efficacy varies widely. Leukocytes in PRP raise the concern of aggravating proinflammatory activity. To date, PRP has rarely been investigated with regard to leukocyte concentration. PURPOSE To provide clinical evidence of the intra-articular injection of PRPs containing different leukocyte concentrations. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. PRP was classified into leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LR-PRP). Clinical outcomes including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and adverse reactions were evaluated. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used for quality assessment. RESULTS Included were 32 studies with an evidence level between 1 and 4. Both LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed improvements above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in VAS pain score. No significant intergroup difference was seen at 3, 6, or 12 months of follow-up. Regarding function, both LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed improvements above the MCID in the WOMAC and IKDC scores, with no significant difference between the groups. Adverse reactions for pain were significantly higher in LR-PRP than in LP-PRP (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.10; P = .01). After intra-articular PRP injection, LR-PRP showed a significantly higher rate of swelling than LP-PRP (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.99; P = .02). The mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score of the included studies was 18.6 (range, 10-24). CONCLUSION Intra-articular PRP injection resulted in improvements above the MCID in terms of pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis up to 12 months. The risk of local adverse reactions appeared to be increased after LR-PRP compared with LP-PRP injection. The findings of this review can support the potential use of intra-articular PRP injection for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. In clinical application, clinicians need to consider selecting a specific type of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.
Study details
Study Design : Systematic Review
Language : eng
Credits : Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine