Safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ding SL, Ji LF, Zhang MZ, Xiong W, Sun CY, Han ZY, Wang C
International orthopaedics. 2023
PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injective treatments for ankle osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library until May 2022. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included with the assessment of the risk of bias. We recorded the participant's age, gender, type of PRP, injection volume, the kit used, and activating agent. We subsequently assessed the short-term and long-term efficacy of PRP using the functional scores and visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS We included four studies with a total of 127 patients, with a mean age of 56.1 years. 47.2% were male (60/127), according to eligibility criteria. There were three cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, and no study reported severe adverse events. All included studies used the Leukocyte-poor PRP. Short-term follow-up results suggested significant improvement of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score in the PRP injection group compared to the control group (n = 87 patients; MD: 6.94 [95% CI: 3.59, 10.29]; P < 0.01). Consistently, there was a statistical difference in AOFAS score between PRP injection and control groups in the final follow-up (≥ 6 months) (n = 87 patients; MD: 9.63 [95% CI: 6.31, 12.94]; P < 0.01). Furthermore, we found a significant reduction in VAS scores in the PRP groups at both the short-term follow-up (n = 59 patients; MD, - 1.90 [95% CI, - 2.54, - 1.26]; P < 0.01) and the ≥ six months follow-up (n = 79 patients; MD, - 3.07 [95% CI, - 5.08, - 1.05]; P < 0.01). The improvement of AOFAS and VAS scores at ≥ six months follow-up reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Nevertheless, the treatment effect of AOFAS and VAS scores offered by PRP at short-term follow-up did not exceed the MCID. Substantial heterogeneity was reported at the ≥ six months follow-up in VAS scores (I(2): 93%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis supports the safety of PRP intra-articular injection for ankle OA. The improvements of AOFAS and VAS scores in the PRP group at short-term follow-up do not exceed the MCID to be clinically significant. PRP injection provides significant improvement of AOFAS score and reduced pain at ≥ six months follow-up. The efficacy of PRP should be interpreted with caution regarding the high heterogeneity and the scarcity of available literature, which urges large-scale RCTs with longer follow-up to confirm the potential efficacy of PRP injection for ankle OA.
Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection on Range of Motion, Pain, and Disability in Patients with Adhesive Capsulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Lin HW, Tam KW, Liou TH, Rau CL, Huang SW, Hsu TH
Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2023
OBJECTIVE To investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection on range of motion (ROM), pain, and disability in patients with adhesive capsulitis (AC). DATA SOURCES The authors performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in February 2023. STUDY SELECTION Prospective studies comparing the outcomes of PRP with other intervention in patients with AC. DATA EXTRACTION The quality of included randomized trials was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was applied to assess the quality of nonrandomized trials. The mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) was determined as the effect size for continuous outcomes, and outcome accuracy was determined using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). DATA SYNTHESIS Fourteen studies involving 1,139 patients were included. Our meta-analysis revealed that PRP injection can significantly improve passive abduction (MD = 3.91, 95% CI: 0.84-6.98), passive flexion (MD = 3,90, 95% CI: 0.15-7.84), and disability (SMD = -0.50, 95% CI: -1.29--0.74) within one month after intervention. Moreover, PRP injection can significantly improve passive abduction (MD = 17.19, 95% CI: 12.38-22.01), passive flexion (MD = 17.74, 95% CI: 9.89-25.59), passive external rotation (MD = 12.95, 95% CI: 10.04-15.87), pain (MD = -8.40, 95% CI: -16.73--0.06), and disability (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI: -1.29--0.74) three months after intervention. PRP injection can also significantly improve pain (MD = -18.98, 95% CI: -24.71 to -13.26), and disability (SMD = -2.01, 95% CI: -3.02 to -1.00) six months after intervention. In addition, no adverse effects of PRP injection were reported. CONCLUSION PRP injection may serve as an effective and safe treatment for patients with AC.
Leukocyte and platelet rich fibrin in the management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Muñoz-Salgado A, Silva FF, Padín-Iruegas ME, Camolesi GC, Bernaola-Paredes WE, Veronese HR, Celestino MD, Filho WJ, Lorenzo-Pouso AI, Pérez-Sayáns M
Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal. 2023
BACKGROUND Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has a frequent adverse effect after the administration of nitrogenous bisphosphonates, as non-nitrogenous bisphosphonates are metabolized more rapidly and would produce this effect to a lesser extent. The objective of this study is to analyze the results obtained in the literature with the use of L-PRF in the treatment of ONJ through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane, Web of Science and Grey Literature Database was screened from which 10 were selected. RESULTS In the meta-analysis with full resolution, combining the use of L-PRF in the treatment of ONJ, a weighted proportion (PP) of 94.3% of complete resolution is obtained (95% CI: 91.2-97.4, p<0.001), with a low degree of heterogeneity, statistically significant (I2 = 29.02%; p<0.001). When analyzing the non-resolution data, a weighted proportion (PP) of 7.7% (95% CI: 3.6-11.9; p<0.001) was obtained with moderate heterogeneity (I2: 41.87%; p=0.112). In the meta-regression, no significant correlation was found between complete resolution and year of publication (intercept = 2.88, p=0.829). In consistency analysis no major changes in PP are identified when any of the studies are eliminated, demonstrating a high reliability in the combined results. CONCLUSION L-PRF alone or in combination with other therapies in treatment of ONJ achieved high percentages of complete lesion resolution (94.3%). In studies where L-PRF is combined with other therapies, and where the effectiveness of the other therapy alone is analyzed, L-PRF has been shown higher percentages of resolution.
Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections are at Least Equivalent to Corticosteroid Injections for Adhesive Capsulitis: A Systematic Review of Prospective Cohort Studies
Nudelman B, Song B, Higginbotham DO, Piple AS, Montgomery WH
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2023
PURPOSE To evaluate the role of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for adhesive capsulitis (AC) as compared to other injectables. METHODS A literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase online databases identifying articles evaluating injection therapy for the treatment of AC. Inclusion criteria included prospective studies comparing PRP against alternative injectables with a minimum 15 patients in each treatment arm and a minimum 12-week follow-up. Pain scores, range of motion, and function scores were the primary outcomes assessed. RESULTS Five articles met inclusion criteria comparing PRP to corticosteroid or saline injections. There were 157 patients treated with PRP with follow-up duration ranging from three to six months. All five studies demonstrated statistically significant improvement in pain scores, motion, and function scores for patients receiving PRP, corticosteroid, and saline injections. However, PRP was consistently superior on intergroup analyses in all but one study. In four studies, pain and function scores favored PRP over control at final follow-up (range in mean difference for VAS pain score: -2.2 - 0.69, n=5 and SPADI score: -50.5 - -4.0, n=3) while three studies found greater improvement in shoulder motion after PRP (range in mean difference for forward flexion: 0.7 - 34.3 degrees and external rotation -2.3 - 20.4 degrees, n=4). One study found no significant difference between PRP and corticosteroid injections, but noted results were comparable. CONCLUSIONS According to a limited number of prospective studies, PRP injections for AC is at least equivalent to corticosteroid or saline injections and often leads to improved pain, motion, and functional outcomes at 3-6-month follow-up. Given the small number of studies, with design heterogeneity, there is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend PRP for AC. However, the results are promising and do support considering PRP as an adjunct treatment option for AC, especially for patients refractory and/or averse to corticosteroids or alternative treatment modalities.
Efficacy of intradiscal injection of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of discogenic low back pain: A single-arm meta-analysis
Peng B, Xu B, Wu W, Du L, Zhang T, Zhang J
Free full text
BACKGROUND Discogenic low back pain (DLBP) has been influencing people's quality of life. Research on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for DLBP has increased in recent years, but systematic summaries are lacking. This study analyzes all published studies related to the use of intradiscal injection of PRP for the treatment of DLBP and summarizes evidence-based medicine for the efficacy of this biologic treatment for DLBP. METHODS Articles published from the inception of the database to April 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrial, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP Chinese Scientific Journals, and the Chinese Biomedicine databases. After the rigorous screening of all studies on PRP for DLBP, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS Six studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective single-arm trials, were included. According to this meta-analysis, pain scores decreased by >30% and >50% from baseline, with incidence rates of 57.3%, 50.7%, and 65.6%, and 51.0%, 53.1%, and 51.9%, respectively, after 1, 2, and 6 months of treatment. The Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased by >30% with an incidence rate of 40.2% and by >50% with an incidence rate of 53.9% from baseline after 2 and 6 months, respectively. Pain scores decreased significantly after 1, 2, and 6 months of treatment (standardized mean difference: 1 month, -1.04, P = .02; 2 months, -1.33, P = .003; and 6 months, -1.42, P = .0008). There was no significant change (P > .05) in the pain scores and the incidence rate when pain scores decreased by >30% and >50% from baseline between 1 and 2 months, 1 and 6 months, and 2 and 6 months after treatment. No significant adverse reactions occurred in any of the 6 included studies. CONCLUSION Intradiscal injection of PRP is effective and safe in the treatment of DLBP, and there was no significant change in the patient's pain 1, 2, and 6 months after PRP treatment. However, confirmation is required by additional high-quality studies due to the limitations of the quantity and quality of the included studies.
Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma vs. corticosteroid injections efficacy in knee osteoarthritis treatment: a systematic review
Idres FA, Samaan M
Annals of medicine and surgery (2012). 2023;85(2):102-110
Osteoarthritis (OA) affects the entire joint structure. The most injured joints are the hands, knees, and hips. OA is a common disease all over the world, and a cause of disability in the elderly; hence, medicine is facing a steady challenge to find effective therapeutics to relieve the pain, improving symptoms for a better quality of life for patients. PURPOSE To compare the results, in the recent literature, of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids (CSs) in osteoarthritic knees at early and mid-term postinjection. METHODS A PubMed and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) database search was performed. Initial screening yielded 108 randomized controlled trials, 17 results, and 17 others were added after updates. The final review includes nine randomized control trials, with outcome evaluating of knee OA by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale Index, and Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS PRP and CS intra-articular injections both are safe and effective treatments in knee OA for alleviating pain, and improving symptoms. It seems that PRP injections have prolonged and shown better improvement in some studies. However, the results do not prefer one method over the other. CONCLUSION Up till now, it is not easy to draw firm conclusions about prioritizing PRP or CS injections for knee OA treatment due to the limitation of this review.
Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Receive Platelet-Rich Plasma or Bone-Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections Have Better Outcomes Than Patients Who Receive Hyaluronic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Belk JW, Lim JJ, Keeter C, McCulloch PC, Houck DA, McCarty EC, Frank RM, Kraeutler MJ
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2023
PURPOSE To systematically review the literature in order to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I studies that compared the clinical efficacy of at least 2 of the following 3 injection therapies: PRP, BMAC, and HA for knee OA. The search phrase used was knee AND osteoarthritis AND randomized AND ("platelet rich plasma" OR "bone marrow aspirate" OR "hyaluronic acid"). Patients were primarily assessed based on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies (all Level I) met inclusion criteria, including 1,042 patients undergoing intra-articular injection(s) with PRP (mean age 57.7 years, mean follow-up 13.5 months), 226 patients with BMAC (mean age 57.0 years, mean follow-up 17.5 months), and 1,128 patients with HA (mean age 59.0 years, mean follow-up 14.4 months). Non-network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p < 0.01), and Subjective IKDC scores (p < 0.001) in PRP patients when compared to HA patients. Similarly, network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p = 0.03), and Subjective IKDC (p < 0.001) scores in BMAC patients when compared to HA patients. There were no significant differences in post-injection outcome scores when comparing PRP to BMAC. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP or BMAC can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared to HA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I, Meta-Analysis of Level I studies.
The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Arthur Vithran DT, Xie W, Opoku M, Essien AE, He M, Li Y
Journal of clinical medicine. 2023;12(3)
BACKGROUND Over the past few years, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy about its benefits for patients with Achilles tendinopathy. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate whether platelet-rich plasma injections can improve outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical CD-ROM, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal databases to identify randomised controlled clinical trials that compared the efficacy of PRP injection in patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) versus placebo, published between 1 January 1966 and 1 December 2022. Review Manager 5.4.1 software was used for the statistical analysis, and the Jadad score was used to assess the included literature. Only 8 of the 288 articles found met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Our work suggests that: The PRP treatment group had a slightly higher VISA-A score than the placebo group at 6 weeks [MD = 1.92, 95% CI (-0.54, 4.38), I(2) = 34%], at 12 weeks [MD = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.65 3.05), I(2) = 60%], and 24 weeks [MD = 2.75, 95% CI (-2.76, 8.26), I(2) = 87%]). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The Achilles tendon thickness was higher at 12 weeks of treatment in the PRP treatment group compared to the control group [MD = 0.34, 95% CI (-0.04, 0.71), p = 0.08], but the difference was not statistically significant. The VAS-improvement results showed no significant difference at 6 and 24 weeks between the two groups, respectively (MD = 6.75, 95% CI = (-6.12, 19.62), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.30), and (MD = 10.46, 95% CI = (-2.44 to 23.37), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.11). However, at 12 weeks of treatment, the PRP injection group showed a substantial VAS improvement compared to the control group (MD = 11.30, 95% CI = (7.33 to 15.27), I(2) = 0%, p < 0.00001). The difference was statistically significant. The return to exercise rate results showed a higher return to exercise rate in the PRP treatment group than the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.87, 1.42), p = 0.40]; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION There is no proof that PRP injections can enhance patient functional and clinical outcomes for Achilles tendinopathy. Augmenting the frequency of PRP injections may boost the outcomes, and additionally, more rigorous designs and standardised clinical randomised controlled trials are needed to produce more reliable and accurate results.
Comparison of the effects of platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection in rotator cuff disease treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Peng Y, Li F, Ding Y, Sun X, Wang G, Jia S, Zheng C
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2023
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids are used to treat rotator cuff diseases. However, few reviews have compared the effects of these two treatments. In this study, we compared the effects of PRP and corticosteroid injection on the prognosis of rotator cuff diseases. METHODS According to the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Review of Interventions, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched comprehensively. Two independent authors screened suitable studies and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of PRP and corticosteroid in the treatment of rotator cuff injuries were included, as measured by clinical function and pain during different follow-up periods. RESULTS Nine studies with 469 patients were included in this review. In short-term treatment, corticosteroids were superior to PRP in the improvement of constant, SST, and ASES scores (MD -5.08, 95%CI -10.26, 0.06; P = .05 and MD -0.97, 95%CI -1.68, -0.07; P = .03 and MD -6.67, 95%CI -12.85, -0.49; P = .03, respectively). No statistically difference was observed between the two groups at mid-term (P> .05), and the recovery of the SST and ASES scores in PRP treatment was significantly better than that in corticosteroid treatment in the long-term (MD 1.21, 95%CI 0.68, 1.74; P < .00001 and MD 6.96, 95%CI 3.90, 9.61; P < .00001, respectively). In pain reduction based on VAS score, corticosteroids led to better pain reduction (MD 0.84, 95%CI 0.03, 1.64; P = .04), but no significant difference was observed in pain reduction between the two groups in the any term (P> .05). However, these differences did not reach the minimum clinically important difference. CONCLUSION Current analysis showed that corticosteroids have better efficacy in short-term, whereas PRP is more beneficial for long-term recovery. However, no difference was observed in the mid-term efficacy between the two groups. RCTs with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes are also needed to determine the optimal treatment.
Comparison of clinical efficiency between intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Chen L, Jin S, Yao Y, He S, He J
Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease. 2023;15:1759720x231157043
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but the comparison of their efficiency is still inconclusive. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of PRP and HA in the treatment of OA by meta-analysis and to explore the effects of different injection times and leukocyte concentration on the efficacy of PRP. DESIGN Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The data were analyzed by Review Manager v5.4.1. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Articles were retrieved and screened from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The outcome included the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS), adverse events (AEs), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the satisfaction rate. RESULTS A total of 30 articles involving 2733 patients were included. The total WOMAC score and IKDC score of the PRP group were better than those of the HA group at the last follow-up time, while there was no significant difference in AEs, satisfaction rate, and VAS between the two groups. In our subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference between single-injection PRP and triple-injection PRP. Leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was better than leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) in IKDC, but there was no significant difference between them in the other scores. CONCLUSIONS In the treatment of OA, compared with HA, PRP performed better in the improvement of the patient's function. There was no significant difference in VAS and AEs between the two groups, and the safety was comparable. LP-PRP looked to be superior to LR-PRP in functional recovery, but there appeared to be no significant difference in pain relief between them. There was no significant difference between single PRP and triple PRP in the subgroup analysis.