Single intra-articular injection with or without intra-osseous injections of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of osteoarthritis knee: A single-blind, randomized clinical trial

Randomized Controlled Trials on Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis Poorly Adhere to the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) Guidelines: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment for knee osteoarthritis has grown exponentially over the past decade; however, its scientific evaluation is highly variable. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons addressed the need for the standardization of orthobiologics studies by publishing the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines in May 2017. In total, the MIBO guidelines are divided into 12 categories, encompassing 23 checklist items.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze how well randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis adhered to the MIBO guidelines. We hypothesized that most articles would report <80% of the MIBO criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used to perform a systematic review in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria included English-language RCTs that assessed PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis and reported beginning patient enrollment in June 2017 or later. The original 23 MIBO checklist items were separated and modified into a 44-point checklist. Adherence was determined by calculating the total percentage of checklist items that each article adequately and clearly reported from the 44-point checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs (2356 patients) were included in this study. The weighted mean age was 57.7 ± 4.4 years, with 42.9% being male. On average, only 53.1% ± 10.4% (range, 31.8%-77.3%) of the 44-point MIBO checklist items were reported per article. No articles had adherence rates ≥80%, 5 (20.0%) had rates between 60% and 79.9%, and 20 (80.0%) had rates ≤59.9%. Categories fluctuated in adherence, with "Intervention" having the greatest adherence (100.0%) and "Activation" having the lowest (14.0%). Additionally, 4 (33.3%) categories had adherence rates ≥80%, 0 had rates from 60% to 79.9%, and 8 (66.7%) had rates ≤59.9%.

CONCLUSION

The overall mean adherence to MIBO guidelines by RCTs on PRP interventions for knee osteoarthritis was 53.1%. To increase the reproducibility, improve transparency, and assess the treatment efficacy of future PRP studies, reporting of MIBO guidelines should be improved.

Most Orthopaedic Platelet-Rich Plasma Investigations Don't Report Protocols and Composition: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature to assess the heterogeneity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparation and composition reporting for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I and Level II studies from 2016 to 2022 that evaluated the use of PRP therapy for musculoskeletal pathologies. The search phrase used was "platelet-rich plasma clinical studies." Studies were assessed based on their reporting of the PRP preparation methods and reporting of PRP composition.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four studies (in 120 articles) met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, 15 (12.1%) provided comprehensive reporting, including a clear, well-described, and reproducible preparation protocol that future investigators can follow. Thirty-three studies (26.6%) quantitatively reported the final PRP product composition.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the studies using PRP for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies, less than 20% provided a clear, well-described, and reproducible PRP preparation protocol, and only one-fourth of studies reported on the final PRP product composition.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A diverse current reporting of PRP composition between studies provides a high heterogeneity of the term "PRP," which becomes a limitation for a comparison of studies using PRP.

Current Status and Advancements in Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment modality has been around for the last four decades, but only truly gained popularity over the last 10 to 15 years in medicine, in a variety of fields ranging from regenerative medicine to infertility treatment. It has gained popularity, especially in treating musculoskeletal conditions where the bulk of research has been performed and published. There is level I evidence available supporting its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), epicondylitis, bursitis, compressive neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, muscular injuries and osteochondral lesions. Most published research with regards to PRP has been focused on knee OA (limited research in shoulder, elbow, and foot and ankle OA), lateral epicondylitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, whereas spinal and hand conditions have limited research available. Tendinopathies and partial tendon tears have conflicting evidence available, with level I evidence supporting PRP's use in rotator cuff tendinopathies and tears, with contradictory level I evidence discouraging its use in patella and Achilles tendinopathies and tears. The available evidence regarding the use of PRP continues to produce conflicting results, but despite this, there is an ongoing increase in the popularity and use of PRP in patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for the treatment of OA.

Methods

We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Two researchers (YQX and CG) performed literature screening, baseline data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis of RCTs from the retrieved studies. Based on the magnitude of heterogeneity I², random-effects or fixed-effects models were selected for the meta-analysis.

Results

We included 24 RCTs comprising 1344 patients with OA who met the inclusion criteria, with the main types of morbidity being knee osteoarthritis (KOA), hip osteoarthritis (HOA), ankle osteoarthritis (AOA), and temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA). Our results indicate that PRP injections were effective in improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores in patients with KOA, HOA, and AOA compared to controls (AOA, MD = -1.15, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.56], I² = 40%, P < 0.05; KOA, MD = -1.03, CI = 95% [-1.16, -0.9], I² = 87%, P < 0.05; TMJOA, MD = -1.35, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.97], I² = 92%, P < 0.05) but showed no significant efficacy in patients with HOA (MD = -0.27, CI = 95% [-0.8, 0.26], I² = 56%, P>0.05). Compared to controls, PRP injections were effective in improving Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), including the patient's pain symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and adhesion symptomatology, but not for that of sports function (KOOS-pain, MD = 2.77, CI = 95% [0, 5.53], I² = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-symptoms, MD = 3.73, CI = 95% [0.76, 6.71], I² = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-ADL, MD = 3.61, CI = 95% [0.79, 6.43], I² = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-QOL, MD = 4.66, CI = 95% [0.98, 8.35], I² = 29%, P < 0.05, KOOS-sport, MD = 0.48, CI = 95% [-3.02, 3.98], I² = 0%, P > 0.05). PRP injections were effective in improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including pain, stiffness, and functional joint motion, in patients with OA compared with the control group (WOMAC-pain, MD = -1.08, CI = 95% [-1.62, -0.53], I² = 87%, P < 0.05; WOMAC-stiffness, MD = -1.17, CI = 88% [-1.72, -0.63], I² = 87%, P < 0.05; WOMAC-function, MD = -1.12, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.58], I² = 87%, P < 0.05). In addition, subgroup analysis showed that leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP injections were more effective than leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP injections in improving pain symptoms in patients with OA (VAS, LR-PRP, MD = -0.81, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.03], I² = 83%, P = 0.06 > 0.05; LP-PRP, MD = -1.62, CI = 95% [-2.36, -0.88], I² = 92%, P < 0.05). A subgroup analysis based on injection sites showed that no statistical difference in efficacy between intra-articular (IA) combined with intra-osseous (IO) simultaneous PRP injections. IA PRP injections only improved VAS pain scores in patients with OA (IA+IO PRP injections, MD = -0.74, CI =95% [-1.29, -0.18], I² = 61%, P < 0.05; IA PRP injections, MD = -1.43, CI = 95% [-2.18, -0.68], I² = 87%, P < 0.05, test for subgroup differences, P > 0.05, I² = 52.7%).

Conclusion

PRP injection therapy can safely and effectively improve functional activity in patients with OA and produce positive analgesic effects in patients with KOA, TMJOA, and AOA. However, PRP injection therapy did not significantly reduce pain symptoms in patients with HOA. In addition, the analgesic effect of LP-PRP was greater than that of LR-PRP.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022362066.

Comparison of clinical outcome, cartilage turnover, and inflammatory activity following either intra-articular or a combination of intra-articular with intra-osseous platelet-rich plasma injections in osteoarthritis knee: A randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to determine the changes in clinical outcome (pain and knee activity) and assess bone/ cartilage biomarkers and inflammatory activity in persons with osteoarthritis (OA) knee following a single injection of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP) and combination of intra-articular, intraosseous PRP (IA+IO-PRP).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. Ninety-six persons with OA knee with a Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 were randomized into three groups- Group-I (IA-PRP), Group-II (IA+IO-PRP)], Group-III, [intra-articular normal saline (IA-NS)]. The primary outcome was a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The secondary outcomes were the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), bone/ cartilage turnover biomarkers [C-telopeptide (CTX-II), N-telopeptide (NTX-I), cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), N-terminal propeptide of collagen type-IIA (PIIANP), and hyaluronic acid (HA)], ultrasonography (USG) findings of the knee joint. The outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Compared to IA-NS injection, IA-PRP and IA+IO-PRP injections significantly improved VAS-pain and KOOS scores at 6 and 12 weeks. Furthermore, both PRP groups showed a significant reduction in ESR, CRP, and CTX-II at 12 weeks following PRP injections. In addition, at 12 weeks, the IA+IO-PRP group showed a significant reduction (p=0.009) in NTX-I level. Persons in the IA+IO-PRP group reported significant reductions in the synovial-effusion and infra-patellar bursitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant clinical improvements were noticed following IA-PRP and IA-IO-PRP injections compared to IA-NS injections. Both PRP groups reported a significant reduction in ESR, CRP, and CTX-II levels at 12 weeks. Persons in the IA+IO-PRP group reported significant changes in u-NTX-I level and knee-USG findings.

Surgical Versus Non-Surgical Treatments for the Knee: Which Is More Effective?

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is extremely prevalent in society. It affects more than 25% of Americans above the age of 18 years. According to July 2020 publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), osteoarthritis affects approximately 325 million Americans. One of the organs that is most affected by osteoarthritis is the knee. Over the years, we have developed non-surgical treatments, such as physical therapy (PT) and injections, and surgical treatments, such as total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and arthroscopic lavage, for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). If a patient fails with non-surgical options, which are tried first to avoid the risks of surgery, the patient may be considered for knee surgery. This article will investigate the different non-surgical options and TKA as treatment options for KOA based on current literature. The goal of this paper is to be a comprehensive resource for physicians and patients with KOA to make an informed decision. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed. The search terms were based on the type of treatments for KOA. To find articles that compared TKA to non-surgical treatments, the terms included "osteoarthritis", "total knee", and "non-surgical treatments," in combination. For other non-surgical treatments such as PT, weight reduction, and injections, a combination of the treatment, "osteoarthritis", and "knee" were included in the search. For the tier 1 process, any randomized controlled trials were included. Any case reports, observational studies, and cross-sectional studies were eliminated from the search. For the tier 2 review process, any articles that did not have relevance to the topic were eliminated after reading the abstracts of the articles. After review of the literature, the data seem to suggest that TKA with 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment improved pain and functionality of the knee more than just 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment when followed up at 12 and 24 months. However, non-surgical treatment before TKA delays the need for surgery. Supervised PT, either in a group or individual format, has been shown to delay TKA in 95% patients in the group that received PT at the end of one year. In addition, weight reduction has been shown as an effective strategy to improve pain and functionality in KOA patients, which decreases the urgency for surgery. Furthermore, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have been shown to have long-term symptomatic relief for KOA compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroid injections. However, HA and corticosteroid injections are beneficial in treating KOA more than receiving no treatment. Physicians often have difficulty deciding whether to pursue conservative or surgical treatment for patients with KOA. The non-surgical treatments explored in this review - PT, injections, and weight reduction - can provide symptomatic relief and, in some cases, delay the need for surgical intervention. However, based on some randomized clinical trials mentioned in the article, patients receiving TKA have more relief, better quality of life, and improved functionality compared to non-surgical therapy. However, a critical review of this important field of debate shows that there are limited randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of TKA and non-surgical treatments for KOA. We believe that this controversial topic needs further clinical investigation.

Combined subchondral and intra-articular injections of bone marrow aspirate concentrate provide stable results up to 24 months

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and imaging findings up to 24 months of follow-up in patients treated with combined subchondral and intra-articular bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients (19 males, 11 females) aged between 40 and 75 years (mean age 56.4 ± 8.1 years) with unilateral symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence 2-3) were included in the study. Patients were treated with combined intra-articular and subchondral bone BMAC injections (total 9 ml) under fluoroscopic control. IKDC subjective score, VAS for pain, KOOS, and EQ-VAS were prospectively evaluated up to 24 months. Radiographs were performed at baseline and at 24 months after the procedure. MRI was evaluated with the WORMS score at baseline, 6-12 months, and 24 months of follow-up. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.19.0 and for all tests p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

No major complications and a 13% failure rate were reported. The IKDC subjective score remained stable from 62.6 ± 19.4 at 12 months to 63.4 ± 17.1 at 24 months (both p < 0.0005 compared to baseline, 40.5 ± 12.5). Similar improvements were reported for all KOOS subscales, while EQ-VAS did not report any significant improvement. VAS pain worsened from 3.0 ± 1.9 at 12 months to 4.4 ± 1.8 at the final follow-up (p = 0.0001), although remaining lower compared to the baseline value of 6.3 ± 1.8 (p = 0.002). The radiographic evaluation did not reveal signs of improvement or deterioration of the OA grade. The MRI findings showed a worsening in marginal osteophytes and synovitis, but a significant reduction of bone marrow edema at 24 months (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

Combined intra-articular and subchondral BMAC injections provided clinical and imaging benefits up to 24 months for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA, with durable clinical results, a low failure rate, and a significant reduction of bone marrow edema.

Intraosseous Infiltration of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Literature and Limited Meta-analysis

Background

The role of subchondral bone as a key mediator in pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) is emerging and various injectable modalities are being tried to address the subchondral pathology. Intraosseous (IO) infiltrations of PRP is biological way of addressing the pathology. This review aimed to explore the role of IO PRP in OA knees.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted on the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Ovid for relevant articles on IO PRP with a predefined search strategy. Data from eligible studies were extracted and was analyzed.

Results

There were only five studies on the study topic which included 112 patients (112 knees) who received IO PRP injection. IO PRP was associated with significant improvements in VAS, KOOS and WOMAC scores. The most commonly reported complication was pain at injection site. Meta-analysis revealed that combined intraarticular (IA) and IO PRP were associated with significantly better WOMAC scores, compared to only IA PRP. However, VAS and KOOS scores were equivocal.

Conclusion

IO PRP infiltration for OA knees is safe and effective and results in improved patient-reported outcome scores based on the current limited literature. However, its added advantage over only IA PRP is not well established and clear due to limited available published data.

Does Bone Marrow Edema Influence the Clinical Results of Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is increasingly used for the intra-articular treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, clinical studies on PRP injections reported controversial results. Bone marrow edema (BME) can cause symptoms by affecting the subchondral bone and it is not targeted by intra-articular treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate if the presence of BME can influence the outcome of intra-articular PRP injections in knee OA patients. A total of 201 patients were included in the study, 80 with and 121 without BME at the baseline MRI. BME area and site were evaluated, and BME was graded using the Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS). Patients were assessed with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, the EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and the Tegner score at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months. Overall, the presence of BME did not influence the clinical results of intra-articular PRP injections in these patients treated for knee OA. Patients with BME presented a similar failure rate and clinical improvement after PRP treatment compared to patients without BME. The area and site of BME did not affect clinical outcomes. However, patients with a higher BME grade had a higher failure rate.