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

STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVES We performed this systematic overview on overlapping meta-analyses that analyzed the role of platelet-rich plasma(PRP) in enhancing spinal fusion and identify which study provides the current best evidence on the topic and generate recommendations for the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects till October-2020 for meta-analyses that analyzed the role of PRP in spinal fusion procedures. Methodological quality assessment was made using Oxford Levels of Evidence, AMSTAR scoring, and AMSTAR 2 grades. We then utilized the Jadad decision algorithm to identify the study with highest quality to represent the current best evidence to generate recommendations. RESULTS 3 meta-analyses fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. The AMSTAR scores of included studies varied from 5-8(mean:6.3) and all included studies had critically low reliability in their summary of results due to their methodological flaws according to AMSTAR 2 grades. The current best evidence showed that utilization of PRP was not associated with significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes such as Visual Analog Score for pain compared to the standard fusion procedure. Moreover, PRP was found to be associated with lower fusion rates. CONCLUSION Based on this systematic overview, the effectiveness of PRP as a biological agent in augmenting spinal fusion is limited. Current evidence does not support the use of PRP as an adjuvant to enhance spinal fusion.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether intradiscal Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP) injection has any beneficial role in the management of lumbar disc disease. METHODS We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for studies investigating the role of intradiscal PRP in the management of lumbar disc disease. The analysis was performed in the R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. RESULTS 13 studies including 2 RCTs, 5 prospective, and 6 retrospective studies involving 319 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies showed a beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of pain relief outcomes like VAS score (p < 0.001), pain component of SF-36 (p = 0.003) while such improvement was not seen in functional outcome measures like ODI score (p = 0.071), the physical component of SF-36 (p = 0.130) with significant heterogeneity noted among the included studies. No structural improvement in magnetic resonance imaging was observed (p = 0.106). No additional procedure-related adverse events were noted in the included studies (p = 0.662). CONCLUSION There is a paucity of high-quality studies to give conclusive evidence on the benefits of intradiscal PRP for lumbar disc disease. Although intradiscal PRP injection has shown some beneficial effect in controlling pain for lumbar disc disease, we could not find structural or functional improvement from the included studies. Hence, we recommend large double-blind double-arm randomized controlled studies to analyze the benefits of the intervention being analyzed.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN Systematic Review & Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) 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 September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-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, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. RESULTS We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures. CONCLUSION PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.