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

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 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

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

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

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 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 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

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

INTRODUCTION Lateral epicondylitis is a painful condition of the elbow, characterised by pain and tenderness with resisted wrist extension. This study was carried out to evaluate the comparative efficacy of the local infiltration of L-PRP, methylprednisolone and normal saline in patients with lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty adult patients, between the ages 30 to 50 years, diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis of more than 12 weeks, were enrolled in the prospective randomised study. Their medical history and previous conservative treatment were recorded; the clinical evaluation of the tendinitis was made with the visual analogue scale (VAS), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) outcome scores, the modified elbow performance index (MEPS), the functional assessment by patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), together with the laboratory investigations. The patients were randomised using the computer-generated alphabets into three groups of 20: group A received saline, group B received PRP, and group C received corticosteroids. RESULTS Patients were seen at 4, 8 and 12 weeks to evaluate the post-injection status. VAS, DASH, and PRTEE scores were significantly reduced, and MEPS was significantly improved in group B compared to group A and group C. Moreover, the reductions in VAS and PRTEE were significantly different in group C compared to group A. CONCLUSION PRP leads to superior healing with long-term therapeutic advantages compared to corticosteroids though it takes a little longer to have its effect.