A study assessing intra-articular PRP vs PRP with HMW HA vs PRP with LMW HA in early knee osteoarthritis

A meta-analysis and systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (PRP + HA) versus PRP monotherapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)

INTRODUCTION

KOA, a chronic degenerative joint disease, is commonly treated with intra-articular HA and PRP, used alone or in combination. However, the efficacy and safety of combination therapy (PRP + HA) remain unclear.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety profile of PRP + HA versus PRP monotherapy for KOA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) to select publications published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) was calculated, along with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and I2statistics and the appropriate p-value. The analysis used RevMan 5.4. GRADE system was used for evidence assessment for each outcome parameter.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (n = 1023 KOA patients) revealed that PRP + HA has substantial effectiveness than PRP alone in reducing OMAC total scores [MD -1.77 (95% CI -2.20 to - 1.34); I2 = 10%, and p < 0.001], VAS scores [MD -4.27 (95% CI -4.96 to - 3.58); I2 = 13%, and p < 0.001], and Lequesne index score [MD -5.48 (95% CI -6.56 to - 4.40); I2 = 16%, and p < 0.001], while increasing IKDC scores [MD -2.10 (95% CI -3.70 to - 0.50); I2 = 9%, and p = 0.01], with low risk of adverse events [RR 0.41 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.48); I2 = 12%, and p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis reveals that, for patients with KOA, PRP + HA therapy is safe and yields better outcomes in pain relief and functional improvement compared to PRP monotherapy.

Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: Adherence to Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics

BACKGROUND

The Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopedics (MIBO) guidelines were developed in May 2017 to encourage improved reporting standards, promote increased transparency and reproducibility, and enhance clinical evaluation capabilities. The MIBO guidelines consist of 23 checklist items considered necessary to critically appraise clinical studies evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

PURPOSE

To assess randomized controlled trials that evaluated PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in order to systematically review their adherence to the MIBO guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review. Level 1a.

METHODS

A search was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials reporting on knee osteoarthritis treated with intra-articular PRP. The studies were categorized into pre-, peri-, and post-MIBO groups based on the start date of data collection. The overall MIBO scores, defined as percentage of checklist items out of the 23 checklist items reported in 1 study, individual item scores, defined as percentage of studies reporting the checklist item within a specified group, and overall item score defined as the average of the individual item scores from all the included studies were calculated.

RESULTS

The review included 87 studies (7925 patients; 8118 knees). Of these, 51 studies were assigned to the pre-MIBO group, 19 studies to the peri-MIBO group, and 17 studies to the post-MIBO group. The overall MIBO score was 72%. No statistically significant differences in MIBO scores were found among the 3 MIBO groups (P = .345). The majority of the studies (62 studies; 71%) had MIBO scores <80%. MIBO items with particularly low item scores included reporting of whole-blood characteristics (20%), platelet recovery rate (22%), PRP analysis (30%), and PRP activation (47%). No significant difference among the 3 MIBO groups was found for the item scores except for the reporting of the recipient details (P = .012).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the deficiencies in adherence to the MIBO guidelines, particularly in reporting key variables such as whole-blood characteristics, platelet recovery rate, PRP analysis, and PRP activation. These findings suggest that the publication of the MIBO guidelines has not resulted in improved reporting practices in studies investigating intra-articular PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid combination therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate whether a combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) is more effective and safer than injection alone for treating KOA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for articles published until January 2024, and gray literature and bibliographic references were searched. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared pain, functional outcomes, and adverse events (AEs) associated with PRP + HA therapy vs. PRP or HA treatments. Two independent researchers extracted the pertinent data and evaluated the methodological quality following the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were pain, functional outcomes, and AEs. A fixed-effects model was used for data analysis in cases with low heterogeneity (P > 0.10 and I2 < 50%). Otherwise, a random effects model was used.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 943 patients were included in the analysis. The statistical findings did not differ between the treatment of PRP + HA and PRP alone, while a discernible enhancement in treatment efficacy was observed when compared to HA monotherapy: the visual analog scale scores at 1- (mean difference[MD], -1.00; 95% CI: -1.37 - -0.62; P < .001), 6- (MD, -1.87; 95% CI: -3.46 - -0.28; P = .02), 12-months (MD, -2.07; 95% CI: -3.77 - -0.38; P = .02), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index total scores at 12-months (MD, -8.82; 95% CI: -14.48 - -3.16; P = .002). The incidence of adverse events was notably lower with PRP + HA than with HA alone (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19 - 0.69; P = .00) or PRP alone (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 - 0.87; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

PRP + HA therapy resulted in more pronounced pain and functional improvement in symptomatic KOA patients than HA treatments, and combination therapy may have higher clinical safety than PRP or HA monotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid and Platelet-Rich Plasma Combination Therapy Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Alone in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic degenerative disease of the joint characterized by biochemical and biomechanical alterations of articular cartilage, degradation of the joint edge, and subchondral bone hyperplasia. Nowadays, intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become a popular treatment modality for treating KOA. Each treatment can be used independently or in combination. However, the efficacy and safety of combination treatment are still inconclusive, and there is a lack of high-quality level 1 studies that support using combination therapy over PRP alone. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and safety of combining HA and PRP therapy versus using PRP therapy alone in KOA patients. Based on the most up-to-date evidence, the dual approach of PRP and HA therapy yields outcomes similar to PRP therapy alone in the short term, up to 12 months. Nonetheless, when considering longer-term results, particularly in the 24-month follow-up, dual therapy holds the potential to produce superior outcomes compared to PRP alone therapy. Additionally, in terms of safety, dual therapy has been associated with slightly fewer adverse events.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in studies with early knee osteoarthritis versus advanced stages of the disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized clinical trials

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); I² = 86%; P ≤ 0.00001] and function [SMD, - 1.00 (95% CI - 1.33, to - 0.66); I² = 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.

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid versus platelet-rich plasma alone for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the curative efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), comparing with platelet-rich plasma alone.

Methods

Cochrane Library, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies regarding the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) comparing with platelet-rich plasma alone before January 15, 2022. The methodological quality of the ultimately included studies was assessed comprehensively, and meta-analysis was implemented using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Thirteen articles (9 RCTs, 4 cohort studies), including 1118 patients, were covered. There was no significant difference between the PRP + HA therapy and PRP-alone therapy in VAS scores at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months, WOMAC total scores at 3 months and KOOS at 1 month and 6 months. Compared with PRP-alone therapy, PRP + HA therapy was associated with significantly better improvement in VAS scores at 1 month, WOMAC total scores at 6 months, KOOS at 3 months, IKDC scores at 6 months and Lequesne index scores at 3 and 6 months. However, the smallest treatment effect of VAS scores, WOMAC total scores, KOOS and IKDC scores did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). However, PRP + HA therapy got a greater reduction in the rate of adverse events, compared with PRP-alone therapy.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that PRP + HA therapy was not found to be superior to PRP-alone therapy in pain relief and function improvement for patients with KOA. However, combined PRP with HA injections was generally safer than PRP injections alone, by assessing the incidence of adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03398-6.

Efficacy of a Novel Intra-Articular Administration of Platelet-Rich Plasma One-Week Prior to Hyaluronic Acid versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Alone in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Recent studies have suggested that the combined injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) may have additive benefits for knee osteoarthritis over PRP alone, but there is insufficient evidence to support this combined injection. Moreover, the simultaneous injection of PRP and HA may offset the combined effect. Hence, the aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to assess their combined efficacy with a novel injection protocol. Forty-six study subjects with unilateral knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either a single-dose injection of HA (intervention group) or normal saline (control group) 1 week after a single-dose injection of leukocyte-poor PRP. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and static balance and the risk of falls measured by Biodex Balance System were, respectively, the primary and secondary outcome measures. Evaluations were performed at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injection. The intervention group exhibited significant declines in WOMAC pain, stiffness, and total scores, as well as static balance, compared to the control group (p < 0.05). These randomized double-blind control trials, with novel protocol of intra-articular injection of PRP 1-week prior to HA, provide greater symptom relief and improve static balance compared to PRP alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Treating Knee Osteoarthritis With Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid Combination Therapy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis. The focus of previous studies has compared their efficacy against each other as monotherapy. However, a new trend of combining these 2 injections has emerged in an attempt to have a synergistic effect.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the clinical literature examining the combined use of PRP + HA.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed and Embase. The following search terms were used: knee osteoarthritis AND platelet rich plasma AND hyaluronic acid. The review was performed by 2 independent reviewers who applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and independently extracted data, including methodologic scoring, PRP preparation technique, HA composition, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

A total of 431 articles were screened, 12 reviewed in full, and 8 included in the final analysis: 2 case series, 3 comparative, and 3 randomized studies. Average follow-up was 9 months. The modified Coleman Methodology Score was 38.13 ± 13.1 (mean ± SD). Combination therapy resulted in improved PROs in all studies. Of the comparative and randomized studies, 2 demonstrated that combination therapy was superior to HA alone. However, when PRP alone was used as the control arm (4 studies), combination therapy was not superior to PRP alone.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with PRP + HA improves PROs and is superior to HA alone but is not superior to PRP alone.

Comparing the efficacy of dual Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Hyaluronic Acid (HA) therapy with PRP-alone therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aims to compare the efficacy of a dual therapy of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Hyaluronic Acid (HA) compared with PRP-alone therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, grey literature and bibliographic references were searched from inception to January 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies comparing the effect of PRP and HA versus PRP-alone therapy for KOA were included. Literature retrieval and data extraction were conducted by three independent reviewers. Pooled analysis of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and adverse events were conducted.

Results

Ten studies (7 RCTs, 3 cohort studies) involving 983 patients were covered. Dual PRP and HA therapy resulted in significant reduction in VAS compared to PRP-alone therapy at 4–6 weeks (P < 0.00001) and 12 months (P < 0.00001). Dual therapy resulted in better WOMAC score improvement at 3 (P = 0.02), 6 (P = 0.05) and 12 months (P < 0.0001) compared to PRP-alone therapy. The IKDC score for dual therapy was also higher at 6 months compared to PRP-alone therapy (P = 0.007). Regarding adverse events, dual therapy was generally safer than PRP-alone therapy (P = 0.02).

Conclusion

While there is a paucity of large high-quality Level I studies, current best evidence suggests that dual therapy with PRP and HA for KOA may be effective at providing pain relief and improvement in function up to 1 year following administration.

Level of evidence

II.

From Pathogenesis to Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: Bench-to-Bedside

Osteoarthritis (OA) is currently the most widespread musculoskeletal condition and primarily affects weight-bearing joints such as the knees and hips. Importantly, knee OA remains a multifactorial whole-joint disease, the appearance and progression of which involves the alteration of articular cartilage as well as the synovium, subchondral bone, ligaments, and muscles through intricate pathomechanisms. Whereas it was initially depicted as a predominantly aging-related and mechanically driven condition given its clear association with old age, high body mass index (BMI), and joint malalignment, more recent research identified and described a plethora of further factors contributing to knee OA pathogenesis. However, the pathogenic intricacies between the molecular pathways involved in OA prompted the study of certain drugs for more than one therapeutic target (amelioration of cartilage and bone changes, and synovial inflammation). Most clinical studies regarding knee OA focus mainly on improvement in pain and joint function and thus do not provide sufficient evidence on the possible disease-modifying properties of the tested drugs. Currently, there is an unmet need for further research regarding OA pathogenesis as well as the introduction and exhaustive testing of potential disease-modifying pharmacotherapies in order to structure an effective treatment plan for these patients.

Osteochondral Injury, Management and Tissue Engineering Approaches

Osteochondral lesions (OL) are a common clinical problem for orthopedic surgeons worldwide and are associated with multiple clinical scenarios ranging from trauma to osteonecrosis. OL vary from chondral lesions in that they involve the subchondral bone and chondral surface, making their management more complex than an isolated chondral injury. Subchondral bone involvement allows for a natural healing response from the body as marrow elements are able to come into contact with the defect site. However, this repair is inadequate resulting in fibrous scar tissue. The second differentiating feature of OL is that damage to the subchondral bone has deleterious effects on the mechanical strength and nutritive capabilities to the chondral joint surface. The clinical solution must, therefore, address both the articular cartilage as well as the subchondral bone beneath it to restore and preserve joint health. Both cartilage and subchondral bone have distinctive functional requirements and therefore their physical and biological characteristics are very much dissimilar, yet they must work together as one unit for ideal joint functioning. In the past, the obvious solution was autologous graft transfer, where an osteochondral bone plug was harvested from a non-weight bearing portion of the joint and implanted into the defect site. Allografts have been utilized similarly to eliminate the donor site morbidity associated with autologous techniques and overall results have been good but both techniques have their drawbacks and limitations. Tissue engineering has thus been an attractive option to create multiphasic scaffolds and implants. Biphasic and triphasic implants have been under explored and have both a chondral and subchondral component with an interface between the two to deliver an implant which is biocompatible and emulates the osteochondral unit as a whole. It has been a challenge to develop such implants and many manufacturing techniques have been utilized to bring together two unalike materials and combine them with cellular therapies. We summarize the functions of the osteochondral unit and describe the currently available management techniques under study.