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 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 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

PURPOSE To compare the long-term clinical efficacy provided by intra-articular injections of either Pure Platelet-rich Plasma (P-PRP) or sham saline to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS This prospective, parallel-group, double-blind, multi-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with KOA from orthopedic departments at nine public hospitals (five tertiary medical centers, four secondary medical units) starting January 1, 2014, with follow-up completed on February 28, 2021. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2021, to July 15, 2021. Three sessions (1 every week) of P-PRP or sham saline injected by physicians. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) at 3, 6, 12, 24, 60 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, intra-articular biochemical marker concentrations, cartilage volume, and adverse events. Laboratory of each hospital analyzed the content and quality of P-PRP. RESULTS 610 participants (59% women) with KOA who received three sessions of P-PRP (n = 308, mean age 53.91 years) or sham saline (n = 302, mean age 54.51 years) injections completed the trial. The mean platelet concentration in PRP is 4.3-fold (95% confidence interval 3.6-4.5) greater than that of whole blood. Both groups showed significant improvements in IKDC, WOMAC, and VAS scores at 1 month of follow-up. However, only the P-PRP group showed a sustained improvement in clinical outcome measurements at month 24 (P < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between the P-PRP and sham saline groups in all clinical outcome measurements at each follow-up time point (P < 0.001). The benefit of P-PRP was clinically better in terms of WOMAC-pain, WOMAC-physical function and WOMAC-total at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months of follow-up. No clinically significant differences between treatments were documented in terms of WOMAC-stiffness at any follow-up. A clinically significant difference favoring P-PRP group against saline in terms of IKDC and VAS scores was documented at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months of follow-up. At 6 months after injection, TNF-α and IL-1β levels in synovial fluid were lower in the P-PRP group (P < 0.001). Tibiofemoral cartilage volume decreased by a mean value of 1171 mm(3) in the P-PRP group and 2311 mm(3) in the saline group over 60 months and the difference between the group was statistically significant (intergroup difference, 1140 mm(3), 95% CI - 79 to 1320 mm(3); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this randomized clinical trial of patients with KOA, P-PRP was superior to sham saline in treating KOA. P-PRP was effective for achieving at least 24 months of symptom relief and slowing the progress of KOA, with both P-PRP and saline being comparable in safety profiles.

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

BACKGROUND Autologous blood injection (ABI) for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis has been promoted as an approach to improve outcomes over standard dry-needling approaches. The purpose of this trial was to investigate if there are improved outcomes following an ultrasonography-guided ABI compared to dry needling alone for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. METHODS A double-blinded (participant-blinded and observer-blinded) RCT within a single clinic enrolled 90 patients with symptoms of plantar fasciitis that had failed to improve with a minimum of 3 months of rehabilitation. The mean age was 49.5±8.9 years, 67% were female, and the mean symptom duration was 40.0±28.2 months (range: 8 months-10 years). Participants were randomized to receive ABI or an identical dry-needle fenestration-procedure without coadministration of autologous blood. All participants received identical structured rehabilitation and were followed up at 2, 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Outcome measures included local foot pain, validated foot patient-reported outcome measures (Foot Function Index-revised, Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure), measures of general function and "ability" (EuroQol [EQ]-5D-5L, Oswestry Disability Index), specific measures of activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), and mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). RESULTS There were no significant between-group differences seen at any time-point studied. There were a number of statistically significant within-group improvements for local foot pain and function in both groups comparing baseline/follow-up data. Overall, levels of pain improved by 25% by 6 weeks and by 50% at 6 months. There were improvements in some generalized function markers. Activity rates did not change, demonstrating that improvements in pain did not necessarily influence physical activity. CONCLUSION Coadministration of 3 mL of autologous blood had no additional effect compared to a dry-needling procedure alone for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I, double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

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

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

BACKGROUND Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of plantar pain which is prevalent among adults. Conservative tractions, invasive injections, shock therapies and also surgical procedures are known as beneficial methods in non-responsive cases. Here we evaluated and compared the injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP) and usage of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in pain reduction in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. METHODS This is a randomized clinical trial that was performed in 2017-2020 on patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who did not respond to conservative therapies. A total number of 110 patients with plantar fasciitis were entered based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were then divided into two groups. The pain of patients was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) before interventions. The first group underwent PRP injections while the second group underwent ESWT using Shock Master 500. Patients were visited 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks after interventions and the pain scores were noted using VAS. RESULTS Data of 104 patients were analyzed. Initial VAS scores of patients were also analyzed. These data indicated no significant differences between the pains of patients before interventions (P = 0.413). Pain evaluations in 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks after interventions with controlling age and sex showed significantly reduced VAS scores in both groups after interventions (P = 0.002). We should also note that pain in the PRP group reduced more than ESWT group and this difference was also significant (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION Here we showed that PRP injections and ESWT are both beneficial in pain amelioration in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. We also indicated that PRP injections were associated with better pain reduction results compared to ESWT.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has a still conflicting efficacy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and might be a minimally invasive and safe treatment alternative. The potential benefit of only plasma (non-enriched) has never been investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and plasma to improve pain and function in participants with KOA over 24 weeks. METHODS Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 3 groups (n = 62): PRP (n = 20), plasma (n = 21) and saline (n = 21). Two ultrasound-guided knee injections were performed with a 2-week interval. The primary outcome was visual analog scale 0-10 cm (VAS) for overall pain at week 24, with intermediate assessments at weeks 6 and 12. Main secondary outcomes were: KOOS, OMERACT-OARSI criteria and TUGT. RESULTS At baseline, 92% of participants were female, with a mean age of 65 years, mean BMI of 28.0 Kg/m(2)and mean VAS pain of 6.2 cm. Change in pain from baseline at week 24 were -2.9 (SD 2.5), -2.4 (SD 2.5) and -3.5 cm (SD 3.3) for PRP, plasma and saline, respectively (p intergroup = 0.499). There were no differences between the three groups at weeks 6 and 12. Similarly, there were no differences between groups regarding secondary outcomes. The PRP group showed higher frequency of adverse events (65% versus 24% and 33% for plasma and saline, respectively, p = 0.02), mostly mild transitory increase in pain. CONCLUSIONS PRP and plasma were not superior to placebo for pain and function improvement in KOA over 24 weeks. The PRP group had a higher frequency of mild transitory increase in pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138317 , 03/05/2017.