Abstract

PURPOSE The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. METHODS The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for clinical trials which compared PRP injection with other 'active treatment' interventions ('Non-PRP' injection and 'No-injection' treatments) or 'No-active treatment' interventions. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that had been published up to 15 November 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome, pain relief, was measured on a 'visual analog scale.' Secondary outcomes were knee functional activities and quality of life (QoL). The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout the study. RESULTS Eight comparative studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Assessment of these studies revealed that there were no significant differences in pain relief, functional outcomes, and QoL in the short, medium, and long term between PRP injection and Non-PRP injection interventions. Similarly, comparison of PRP injection to the No-active treatment intervention showed no differences in short- and medium-term pain relief. However, when PRP injection was compared to the No-injection treatment intervention extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ECWT), the former was found to be more effective in terms of pain relief in the medium term (mean difference [MD] - 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.72 to - 0.28) and long term (MD - 1.70; 95% CI, - 2.90 to - 0.50) and functional outcomes in the medium term (MD 13.0; 95% CI 3.01-22.99) and long term (MD 13.70; 95% CI 4.62-22.78). CONCLUSIONS In terms of pain relief and functional outcomes, the PRP injection did not provide significantly greater clinical benefit than Non-PRP injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. However, in comparison with ESWT, there was a significant benefit in favor of PRP injection.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) usage in orthopaedics continues to rise despite guidelines suggesting non-superiority to comparative cohorts. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on PRP efficacy using two clinical assessments: (1) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and (2) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). We assessed consistency and clinical relevancy by determining study heterogeneity (e.g., sample sizes, ages, BMIs, arthritic severities, etc.). Comparative cohorts were: (A) hyaluronic acid (HA); (B) corticosteroid (CS); (C) normal saline (NS); and (D) exercise therapy. We performed sub-analyses of structural changes assessed on ultrasound, radiograph, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS We utilized PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to December 1, 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-four studies met criteria, with comparisons to: HA (n=11); CS (n=6); NS (n=5); and exercise therapy (n=3). Seven studies assessed structural changes. Evaluations utilized a methodological scoring system. I(2) statistics and forest plots pooled analyses and delineated study results. RESULTS PRP led to VAS and WOMAC improvements in most studies when compared to HA, CS, and NS (p≤0.05). Comparison to exercise therapy resulted in inconclusive findings (p≥0.05). However, substantial heterogeneity (I(2) ≥76%) was reported due to study variability. No differences were found when assessing structural changes or cartilage thickness by MRI (standardized mean difference -0.01 [-0.19, 0.18], p=0.91). CONCLUSIONS PRP may be associated with pain and functional improvements but was not clinically relevant (inconsistent study- and patient-metrics). Additionally, PRP did not confer superiority when assessing knee-related structural changes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND There has been an increase in interest in the use of biological therapies in orthopaedic conditions such as knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of these therapies, but it still lacks consistent results. PURPOSE To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of PRP intra-articular injection compared with other nonsurgical methods for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS Three electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies published before January 2021. The primary outcomes were pain, function, and failure of treatment. Risks of bias of all trials were assessed using a Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System was used to assess the quality of evidence of included studies. RESULTS A total of 40 studies with 3035 participants were included. Analysis of this review focused on comparing PRP with hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, and saline, as we believe they are the most relevant comparisons with the most studies available. At 6-month follow-up, PRP was as effective as and in some studies more effective than other therapies regarding pain, function, and stiffness. However, current evidence is of low or very low quality and is based on trials with high risk of bias and great heterogeneity among them. No significant difference among treatments was found concerning major adverse events and treatment failure. CONCLUSION Although studies suggest that PRP may be more effective than or at least as effective as other modalities of nonsurgical treatment for knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, function, and adverse events, serious limitations and methodological flaws are considerable in the current literature. Therefore, the authors are not able to make recommendations for clinical practice regarding PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears have a high prevalence in older people. Treatment for such tears remains controversial. Platelet-rich plasma has recently attracted attention for treating partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, due to its regenerative characteristics. However, the results of application of platelet-rich plasma in non-operative treatments are unclear. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effects on shoulder function improvement and pain relief of platelet-rich plasma injection in partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, at different follow-up times (3-6 weeks, 8-12 weeks, and more than 24 weeks after treatment) compared with placebo or corticosteroids. DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Several databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The quality of research was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma was calculated as the difference between baseline measurements and post-injection outcomes. The standardized mean difference was used to compare different outcome scales or questionnaire measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.0. RESULTS The analysis included 11 studies, with a total of 641 patients (318 treated with platelet-rich plasma and 323 controls). Compared with placebo, platelet-rich plasma exhibited significantly better effects on shoulder function improvement and pain relief at all 3 follow-up times. Compared with other conservative treatments, platelet-rich plasma exhibited significantly better effects on shoulder function and pain relief at 8-12 weeks and at more than 24 weeks after treatment. CONCLUSION This review showed positive effects on shoulder function improvement and pain relief of the use of platelet-rich plasma in treating partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, especially in relatively late stages of follow-up (more than 8 weeks) after treatment.

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

OBJECTIVES We aim to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in comparison to all the available treatments in the management of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library till June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), analyzing the efficacy and safety of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score (VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using MetaInsight. Available treatment methods in the network were ranking based on the p-score approach. The quality of results from network analysis was appraised with Cochrane's CINeMA approach. RESULTS 25 RCTs with 2040 patients were included in the network analysis. Compared to saline control, only leucocyte-rich PRP resulted in significant pain relief (WMD -14.8 95% CI [-23.18,-6.39]; low confidence) on network analysis of VAS outcome compared to other treatment methods such as steroid, local anesthetic, laser, and surgery. Concerning functional outcome parameters such as DASH score or PRETEE score, none of the above-mentioned treatment methods were superior to saline control. On subgroup analysis of the outcomes at various time points, LR-PRP resulted in clinically significant improvement at all time points analyzed. Upon ranking the probabilities of being best of all the interventions analyzed in the network, leucocyte-rich PRP seems more promising with a p score of 0.415. CONCLUSION PRP therapy offers significant pain relief compared to saline control when employed in the management lateral epicondylitis. However, we did not note similar improvement in functional outcomes measures. With the available low-quality evidence, PRP is ranked to be the most promising therapy that needs further exploration. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to explore its usefulness in lateral epicondylitis.

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: Recently, there was a series of clinical studies focusing on local injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the safety and efficacy of PRP in these CTS patients remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to compare PRP with other conservative treatments in treatment of CTS patients. Methods: We systematically searched from electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE) up to 10 December 2021. The data of clinical results were extracted and analyzed by RevMan Manager 5.4. Results: Finally, eight randomized controlled studies, involving 220 CTS patients undergoing local injection of PRP were enrolled in this systematic review. All enrolled trials were considered to be of high quality. In the short-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly lower in symptom severity scale (SSS) compared with the control group (MD = -2.00; 95% CI, -3.15 to -0.85; p = 0.0007; I(2) = 0%). In the mid-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly effective than the control group in the visual analogue scale (MD = -0.63; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.04; p = 0.04; I(2) = 61%), SSS (MD = -3.56; 95% CI, -4.93 to -2.18; p < 0.00001; I(2) = 0%), functional status scale (MD = -2.29; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.56; p < 0.00001; I(2) = 45%), sensory peak latency (MD = -0.39; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.19; p = 0.0001; I(2) = 0%) and cross-sectional area of median nerve (MD = -0.20; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.10; p = 0.0002; I(2) = 0%). In the mid-long-term efficacy, the PRP group was only significantly lower in SSS compared with the control group (MD = -2.71; 95% CI, -4.33 to -1.10; p = 0.001; I(2) = 38%). Conclusion: Local PRP injection is more effective than other conservative treatments in terms of mid-term efficacy in relieving pain, improving wrist function and symptoms, reducing MN swelling, and partially improving electrophysiological indicators. However, the long-term adverse side and consensus on standardization of PRP in CTS patients still need further large-scale trials.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants). Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates. One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants). Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants). Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants). Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW The treatment of non-union fractures represents a significant challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. In recent years, biologic agents have been investigated and utilised to support and improve bone healing. Among these agents, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging strategy that is gaining popularity. The aim of this review is to evaluate the current literature regarding the application and clinical effectiveness of PRP injections, specifically for the treatment of non-union fractures. RECENT FINDINGS The majority of published studies reported that PRP accelerated fracture healing; however, this evidence was predominantly level IV. The lack of randomised, clinical trials (level I-II evidence) is currently hampering the successful clinical translation of PRP as a therapy for non-union fractures. This is despite the positive reports regarding its potential to heal non-union fractures, when used in isolation or in combination with other forms of treatment. Future recommendations to facilitate clinical translation and acceptance of PRP as a therapy include the need to investigate the effects of administering higher volumes of PRP (i.e. 5-20 mL) along with the requirement for more prolonged (> 11 months) randomised clinical trials.