Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is a devastating disease, and there is some evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection might alleviate pain and improve joint function in individuals with ONFH. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of PRP and ESWT in symptomatic ONFH patients. METHODS A total of 60 patients aged 40-79 with unilateral ONFH at Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) stages I, II, and III were randomly assigned to the PRP (N=30) or the ESWT group (N=30). Four treatment sessions were provided in both groups. Assessments were performed at baseline, and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month. Primary outcomes were measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). Secondary outcomes were assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The linear mixed-model analysis was used to evaluate the differences between groups and within groups and the "group by time" interaction effects. RESULTS There were significant differences between groups in terms of changes over time for VAS, PPTs, WOMAC, and HHS since 3-month and maintained up to 12-month (P<0.05, except for PPTs at 12-month). The simple main effects showed that the patients in PRP group had greater improvements in VAS (mean difference = -0.82, 95% CI [-1.39, -0.25], P=0.005), WOMAC (mean difference = -4.19, 95% CI [-7.00, -1.37], P=0.004), and HHS (mean difference = 5.28, 95% CI [1.94, 8.62], P=0.002). No related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION This study supported the effectiveness and safety of both the PRP injection and ESWT in treating ONFH patients. For symptomatic patients with ONFH, intra-articular PRP injection appeared superior to ESWT in pain relief and functional improvement.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. PURPOSE To systematically compare the pain relief, functional improvement and successful rates on treatment of two different types of PRP, by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection. METHODS The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from inception to August 2021 by terms of lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP. PRP involved in present study were divided into leukocyte-poor PRP and leukocyte-rich PRP groups according to different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included characteristics of the subjects, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, successful rate and safety of treatment of short-term and long-term follow-up. RESULTS A total of 33 studies included 2420 LE patients. There were 19 studies with LP-PRP, 13 studies with LR-PRP and 1 study involved both LP-PRP and LR-PRP. Patients had significant improved clinical outcomes post-treatment compared to pre-treatment in both groups of PRP. The mean of VAS was ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before the treatment, 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term and 0.6 to 3.3 at the long-term follow-up in LR-PRP group. The mean of VAS was ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before the treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term and 0.7 to 2.7 in the long-term follow-up in LP-PRP group. The DASH score of LR-PRP and LP-PRP were ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7 separately before the treatment and 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0 separately at long-term follow-up. LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups reflected successful rate ranged from 70%-100% and 36%-100% respectively. The complication rate lower in LP-PRP group (3.9%) than LR-PRP group (6.4%), with the major complication was temporary pain after PRP treatment (P = 0.029). CONCLUSION PRP treatment demonstrated a significant improvement with pain relief and functional improvement on lateral epicondylitis regardless types of PRP. There was no significant difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in pain relief and functional improvement. The major complication was temporary pain after PRP injection and the complication rate in LP-PRP was lower than LR-PRP.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Subchondral bony structure damage plays an essential role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) knee. An intra-articular injection cannot reach the damaged subchondral bony structure and treat its pathologies effectively. The objective of the study was to compare the clinical effects of single intra-articular injection with or without intra-osseous injections of PRP in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) knee. METHODS This was a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Fifty patients, with OA knee (K&L grade III), with ages between 50 and 65 years, were randomly allocated into 'intra-osseous, intra-articular PRP' ('IO+IA-PRP') (n = 25) or 'intra-articular PRP' group ('IA-PRP') (n = 25). Patients in the 'IO+IA-PRP' group received 18 ml PRP injection, and the 'IA-PRP' group received 8 ml PRP injection. Intra-osseous injections were given at the tibial plateau (5 ml) and femoral condyle (5 ml), along with intra-articular knee injection (8 ml), under fluoroscopic guidance. Outcomes were measured using VAS-pain, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), and the treatment satisfaction scale. All patients (n = 50) were followed up till six months. RESULTS The mean age was 57.12(4.27) years and 57.00(4.96) years in the 'IO+IA-PRP' and 'IA-PRP' groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in pain relief (VAS pain) and KOOS parameters: pain, symptoms, ADL function, sport and recreation function, and quality of life. Compared to the 'IA-PRP' group, the 'IO+IA-PRP' group showed a greater reduction of VAS pain at six months. However, no significant difference was obtained in VAS pain-relief between these two groups (p = 0.422) at six months. Similarly, at 6 months, in inter-group comparison, except 'sport and recreation function' (p < 0.05), no significant differences were obtained in mean-scores of KOOS parameters: pain (p = 0.514); symptom (p = 0.148), ADL-function (p = 0.991), QoL-(p = 0.376). Patients in the 'IO+IA-PRP' group complained of significant 'injection-associated' adverse events and consumed a greater number of Acetaphenomen. CONCLUSIONS Both groups showed significant improvement following the intervention. Intra-osseous PRP injections did not provide any additional benefit over intra-articular PRP injection until six months regarding pain relief and functional improvement.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Interventions for chronic discogenic spine pain are currently insufficient in lowering individual patient suffering and global disease burden. A 2016 study of platelet rich plasma (PRP) for chronic discogenic pain previously demonstrated clinically significant response among active group patients compared with controls. OBJECTIVES To replicate the previous research to move this intervention forward as a viable option for patient care. STUDY DESIGN A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING Multicenter private practices. METHODS Twenty-six (12 men, 14 women) human patients, ages 25 to 71 with a diagnosis of chronic lumbar discogenic pain, were randomly assigned to active (PRP) or control (saline) groups in a ratio of 2 active to 1 control. Baseline and follow-up Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale questionnaires were obtained to track patient outcomes at 8 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS Within group assessment showed clinically significant improvement in 17% of PRP patients and clinically significant decline in 5% (1 patient) of the active group. Clinically significant improvement was seen in 13% of placebo group patients and no placebo patients had clinically significant decline secondary to the procedure. LIMITATIONS Possible explanations may include a range of factors including differences in patient demographics, outcome-measure sensitivity, or misalignment of statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS These findings are markedly different than the highly promising results of the 2016 PRP study. This study posits necessary caution for researchers who wish to administer PRP for therapeutic benefit and may ultimately point to necessary redirection of interventional research for discogenic pain populations.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach to treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the effectiveness of PRP in advanced stages of the disease is not entirely clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the use of PRP would be as effective in studies with early-moderate knee OA patients compared to studies including patients with end-stage OA, based on the Kellgren-Lawrence classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of PRP injections versus other intra-articular treatments on pain and functionality. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS We included 31 clinical trials that reported data of 2705 subjects. Meta-analysis revealed an overall significant improvement of both pain [MD, - 1.05 (95% CI - 1.41 to - 0.68); I(2) = 86%; P ≤ 0.00001] and function [SMD, - 1.00 (95% CI - 1.33, to - 0.66); I(2) = 94%; P ≤ 0.00001], favoring PRP. Subanalysis for pain and functional improvement showed a significant pain relief in studies with 1-3 and 1-4 Kellgren-Lawrence OA stages and a significant functional improvement in studies with 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 knee OA stages, favoring PRP. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that including patients with advanced knee OA does not seem to affect the outcomes of clinical trials in which the effectiveness of the PRP in knee OA is assessed.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is gaining large interest in clinical practice as a minimally invasive injective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Different preparation methods are available, and the presence of leukocytes, deemed detrimental in some preclinical studies, is one of the most debated aspects regarding PRP efficacy. PURPOSE To compare the safety and effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) for the treatment of knee OA. STUDY DESIGN Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS A total of 192 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) were randomly allocated to 3 weekly injections of LR-PRP or LP-PRP. LP-PRP was obtained with a filter for leukodepletion. LR-PRP and LP-PRP were divided into aliquots of 5 mL, with a mean platelet concentration of 1146.8 × 10(9)/L and 1074.9 × 10(9)/L and a mean leukocyte concentration of 7991.4 × 10(6)/L and 0.1 × 10(6)/L, respectively. Patients were evaluated at baseline and thereafter at 2, 6, and 12 months for the primary outcome, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score; and for secondary outcomes, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), and Tegner score. RESULTS No differences between groups were observed in terms of absolute values or improvement of the clinical scores across all follow-up intervals. The mean IKDC subjective score at baseline and 12 months improved from 45.6 to 60.7 in the LR-PRP group as compared with 46.8 to 62.9 in the LP-PRP group (P = .626). No severe adverse events were described in either group, although 15 mild adverse events (knee pain or swelling) were reported: 12.2% for LR-PRP and 4.7% for LP-PRP (P = .101). No statistically significant difference was also found between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in terms of failures (7.8% vs 3.5%, P = .331). CONCLUSION This double-blind randomized trial showed that 3 intra-articular LR-PRP or LP-PRP injections produced similar clinical improvement in the 12 months of follow-up in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Both treatment groups reported a low number of adverse events, without intergroup differences. The presence of leukocytes did not significantly affect the clinical results of PRP injections. REGISTRATION NCT02923700 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Patient with chronic nonspecific low back pain is weakened ligament, and prolotherapy is the effective treatment but their use remains controversial. These ligaments can be strengthened by platelet-rich plasma injection. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma injection and prolotherapy may decrease pain and improved disability of patient with chronic low back pain. METHODS This study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial and was conducted for 3 years for patient enroll and follow-up. Thirty-four patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (duration of at least 3 months) refectory to conventional management were randomized to platelet-rich plasma injection and lidocaine injection. Patients were treated with weekly platelet-rich plasma or lidocaine injections at the lumbopelvic ligaments for 2 weeks and then weekly prolotherapy with 15% glucose for 2 weeks and followed up 6 months. Visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire were evaluated at initial, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Four patients did not complete this trial. Three were in the platelet-rich plasma injection and 1 was in the lidocaine injection. RESULTS The intensity of pain was significantly decreased in platelet-rich plasma injections at 6 months as compared lidocaine injections; between-group differences were 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.10-1.75 [P = .027]). All participants were significantly decreased pain and disability index at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months but there were no significant differences between groups except for visual analog scale at 6 months. The baseline parameters were no significant differences in both groups. CONCLUSIONS In chronic nonspecific low back pain, the platelet-rich plasma injection in combination with prolotherapy is an effective intervention and either lidocaine or platelet-rich plasma injection significantly reduced disability. And injection at the lumbopelvic ligaments using the platelet-rich plasma and prolotherapy is also an effective treatment for pain.

Abstract

PURPOSE The purpose of this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of local injection of allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors in treatment of patients with tennis elbow. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study included 120 tennis elbow patients randomly divided into two groups. The patients were locally injected with allogeneic growth factors (treatment group) or with normal saline (control group). The outcomes were assessed using Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) scales. The clinical outcomes were accordingly classified as excellent, good and poor. The patient's satisfaction and adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the age, gender, dominant arm or the pre-injection scores. At three month follow-up, the reductions in the mean PRTEE and qDASH scores were 88.7% and 70.6% in the treatment group versus 21.8% and 14.9% in the control group, respectively. At the last follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group were excellent in 85% of patients and good in 15%, versus 8% and 32% in the control group. Overall, 95% were satisfied in the treatment group compared to 25% in control group. Forty patients in the treatment group experienced mild transient post-injection pain. CONCLUSION This study strongly suggests that local injection of allogeneic platelet-derived growth factors could be a promising safe treatment option for tennis elbow with significant pain relief, functional improvement and patient's satisfaction. Yet, additional larger studies are needed to assess the durability of these outcomes.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of intra-articular injection (IAI) of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) with Triamcinolone Hexacetonide (TH) and Saline Solution (SS), in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN A randomized controlled trial, with blinded patients and assessor. SETTING Outpatient rheumatology service. SUBJECTS Patients with knee osteoarthritis grades II and III. INTERVENTIONS Patients received IAI with PRP, 40 mg TH, or SS. METHODS Patients were assessed at baseline and after 4, 8, 12 e 52 weeks with: visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain at rest and movement, WOMAC questionnaire, Timed to Up and Go test, 6-min walk test, percentage of improvement, goniometry, quality of life SF-36 questionnaire, Likert scale and Kelgreen & Lawrence (KL) radiographic scale (only at baseline and 52 weeks). RESULTS 100 patients were studied, with a mean age of 67.13(6.56) years. The TH group was superior for: percentage of improvement (versus SS group from 4 to 52 weeks); WOMAC total and pain (versus PRP group at 4 weeks); and WOMAC stiffness (versus SS group at 12 weeks). The SS group was inferior for WOMAC function (from 8 to 52 weeks). The PRP group showed lowest radiographic progression [TH 17 (51.51%) to 24 (72.72%); SS 17 (51.51%) to 30 (90.90%); PRP 20 (58.82%) to 21 (61.76%)]. CONCLUSION The Triamcinolone Hexacetonide group was superior for percentage of improvement and WOMAC, pain and stiffness. For the WOMAC function, the Platelet-Rich Plasma group and Triamcinolone Hexacetonide group were superior to the Saline group. The Platelet-Rich Plasma group showed the lowest radiographic progression at 52 weeks of follow-up.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid (HA) versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) injection in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. DESIGN Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING Academic institution. PATIENTS Seventy patients with chronic glenohumeral osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of HA (n = 36) or LP-PRP (n = 34). INTERVENTIONS Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma was processed using Harvest/TerumoBCT Clear PRP kits. Ultrasound-guided injections of 6 mL HA or 6 mL LP-PRP into the glenohumeral joint were performed. Patients, the injecting physician, and outcomes assessor were blinded to treatment assignments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, current/average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, satisfaction, and side effects were assessed at the 5 follow-up time points over 12 months. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant between-group differences regarding SPADI, ASES, and current/average NRS pain scores at any time point up to 12 months postinjection (P > 0.05). However, significant improvements in SPADI, ASES, and current/average NRS pain scores were observed in both groups starting at 1 or 2 months (P < 0.01, P < 0.01, P < 0.001, and P < 0.01, respectively). These improvements were observed regardless of osteoarthritis severity. For patients who received LP-PRP, there was no effect of platelet yield on outcomes. Side effect and satisfaction rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS There were no differences in pain and functional outcomes after a single injection of LP-PRP versus HA. However, significant improvements in pain and function were observed after both treatments in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.