Platelet rich plasma therapy: A comparative effective therapy with promising results in plantar fasciitis

Comparative Effectiveness of Acupuncture Versus Non-surgical Modalities for Treating Plantar Fasciitis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Plantar fasciitis, or plantar heel pain, causes inflammation of the plantar fascia due to various causes, with no clear consensus on the treatment protocol. Standard first-line treatment includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and physiotherapy. Second-line treatment prior to surgery includes extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), ultrasound-guided (USG) therapy, corticosteroid injection (CSI), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection. Recently, the use of acupuncture treatment has been gaining popularity, with increasing published evidence showing its effectiveness in treating plantar fasciitis. The objective of this study was to determine whether acupuncture intervention was a viable alternative treatment method for managing plantar fasciitis when compared to ESWT, USG therapy, CSI, and PRP injection. Data sources from PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were reviewed. Clinical trials were searched from their inception over the period of January 2000 to October 2020. A total of 32 relevant papers were included for analysis, totaling 2390 samples. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores measuring pain were analyzed in terms of outcome after one and three months of treatment. Each time point was analyzed separately through a network meta-analysis using the frequentist approach. VAS scores for each intervention at baseline and the two-time points (i.e., one and three months) were included in the comprehensive meta-analysis. Then, differences in VAS scores were calculated in R studio (V4.1.2; RStudio: Integrated Development for R, RStudio, Inc., Boston, USA) using the netmeta package. The netmeta package was also used to perform the network meta-analysis and generate corresponding figures. Direct and indirect effects were assessed and visualized through a direct evidence plot and a node-splitting forest plot. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs involving treatments of acupuncture, ESWT, USG therapy, CSI, or PRP injection, either in comparison with each other or with a placebo, were included in our review. Our meta-analysis showed that at one month, VAS scores for acupuncture treatment had the highest mean difference (MD) of -1.33 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -2.19 to -0.46) compared to placebo, indicating that acupuncture treatment was more effective than other treatment arms when compared to placebo. Analysis at threemonths showed that the highest-ranked treatment was PRP injection, with an MD of -2.67 (95% CI = -6.23 to 0.89). However, the CI for the net effect of all treatments crossed the null effect on the forest plot, indicating no statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo. Acupuncture treatment should be considered as a second-line treatment for treatment of plantar fasciitis together with other common treatment options such as ESWT, PRP injection, CSI, and USG therapy. Further long-term studies measuring acupuncture treatment outcomes would be beneficial in the future.

Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. There are numerous non-operative treatments available including platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. PPR has demonstrated effectiveness for a range of musculoskeletal conditions including plantar fasciitis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of PRP to other conservative treatment options for the management of PF.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed for randomized control trials (RCT) comparing PRP to other treatment modalities. Studies met inclusion criteria if mean and standard deviations for visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, plantar fascia thickness (PFT), Foot Function Index (FFI), or American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score were reported. Mean differences (MD) were used to compare VAS pain, PFT, FFI, and AOFAS between PRP and other treatments.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs which altogether included 1356 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS pain scores compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) (SMD: 0.86; CI: [0.30, 1.41]; p = 0.002), corticosteroid injections (CSI) (SMD: 1.08; CI: [0.05, 2.11]; p = 0.04), and placebo (SMD: 3.42; CI: [2.53, 4.31]; p < 0.00001). In terms of FFI, no significant differences existed among PRP, ESWT, CSI, dextrose prolotherapy (DPT), and meridian trigger points (MTP) in enhancing foot functionality. However, PRP demonstrated a marked advantage over phonophoresis, showing a substantial improvement in FFI scores (SMD: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.34-3.81). PRP did not demonstrate superiority over ESWT, CSI, or MTP for improving PFT, but it was notably more effective than phonophoresis (SMD: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43-3.94). PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AOFAS scores over CSI (SMD: 3.31, CI: [1.35, 5.27], p = 0.0009) and placebo (SMD: 3.75; CI: [2.81, 4.70]; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

PRP is more effective than CSI, ESWT, and placebo in reducing VAS and more effective than CSI and placebo in improving AOFAS. PRP did not demonstrate a consistent advantage across all outcome measures, such as PFT and FFI. These findings underscore the complexity of PF treatment and call for a more standardized approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I Meta-Analysis.

Botulinum toxin A versus platelet rich plasma ultrasound-guided injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) injections have proven effective in clinical trials for plantar fasciitis treatment but have not been directly compared. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PRP or BTX-A injections.

METHODS

We performed a randomised controlled trial (59 patients; 1-year follow-up) to assess efficacy, using pain and functional scales (VAS, AOFAS Hindfoot-scale and FAAM questionnaire) and fascia thickness reduction, in control and single ultrasound-guided BTX-A or PRP injection groups.

RESULTS

The BTX-A group showed better results at 1-month after treatment. Conversely, the PRP injection was more effective in the long-term, with significant pain reduction and functional improvement. Plantar fascia thickness significantly reduced from months 1 and 3 in the PRP and BTX-A groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PRP and BTX-A injections are effective in patients with plantar fasciitis with BTX-A achieving better short-term pain reduction and PRP better long-term results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I; Randomised Controlled Trial.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in pathologies of the foot and ankle: A comprehensive review of the recent literature

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous serum containing higher concentrations of platelets and growth factors above normal blood. The process of obtaining PRP involves the extraction of blood from the patient which is then centrifuged to obtain a concentrated suspension of platelets. PRP continues to evolve as a potential treatment modality with many applications in orthopaedic surgery. The therapeutic components of PRP possess numerous theoretical regenerative properties. The present manuscript outlines how PRP is prepared, noting the tremendous variability between preparation protocols. Given the growing body of evidence examining the use of PRP in pathologies of the foot and ankle, we assess its efficacy as it relates to our field. Specifically, we evaluate the literature in the past five years regarding the role of PRP in treating plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendinopathy, insertional Achilles tendinitis, Achilles tendon ruptures, osteochondral lesions of the talus, hallux rigidus, and ankle osteoarthritis.

Platelet-rich plasma injections as a treatment for Achilles tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis in athletes

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections represent a growing interest in the use of biologic therapies for treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. One possible application of PRP is in the management of overuse injuries commonly experienced by athletes. The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize existing evidence regarding the efficacy of PRP in the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis in athletes. Although many lower quality single-armed studies have demonstrated clinical improvement in athletes treated for Achilles tendinopathy with PRP, higher quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown no clear benefit in athletes. Existing data suggest PRP significantly improves clinical outcomes for plantar fasciitis in the general population, but very few studies and no RCTs are available that specifically analyze outcomes in athletic populations. More research is needed to evaluate how platelet concentration, leukocyte and erythrocyte presence, and sport type may interact to affect clinical outcomes in athletes.

Prospective Comparative Short-Term Study of Autologous Leucocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma vs. Local Steroids in Chronic Plantar Fascitis

Background Plantar fasciitis is the most common cause of heel pain and is difficult to treat in most chronic and severe forms. Management of plantar fasciitis includes non-surgical options such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids, physical therapy, orthotics, and surgical management includes plantar fasciotomy. Local injection of platelet-rich plasma as well as local steroids is an emerging concept in treating recalcitrant tendon and ligament pathology, including plantar fasciitis.

Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the outcome of patients treated with a single injection of autologous leucocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma with single-injection local steroids triamcinolone in chronic plantar fasciitis.

Methodology The study was conducted for a duration of 24 months. In total, 60 patients with clinically diagnosed chronic plantar fasciitis were selected for study and divided in two groups using the single allocation randomization method as those treated with autologous injection leucocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma and those with injection local steroid triamcinolone and prospectively followed and compared.

Results Both groups were evaluated subjectively and functionally at primary visit and then on follow-up at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks by VAS and hind foot AOFAS score.

Conclusion We concluded that both injection platelet-rich plasma-treated and injection local steroid-treated patients provide symptomatic relief in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis both subjectively and functionally. The steroid treated group showed early symptomatic improvement at 2 weeks, and results at 12 weeks to further follow-up were suggestive that single-injection leucocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma provided better functional results.

The role of corticosteroid injections in treating plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is a recurrent cause of heel pain and is often treated by corticosteroid infections (CSI). The current study reviewed and analysed the role of CSI with platelet rich plasma (PRP), and CSI with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (EWST) for plantar fasciitis treatment.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies. Preferred Reporting in Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to search relevant studies published from infinity to April 2021. The risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. GRADE assessment was used for quality of evidence. Data analysis was performed with the use of R software and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. CSI was compared with PRP and EWST.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies comprising 1180 patients were included in this meta-analysis. When compared to PRP, CSI with lignocaine/lidocaine had significantly higher mean difference on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at 3 months (0.62 [0.13; 1.12], P = 0.01) and 6 months (MD = 1.49 [0.22; 2.76], P = 0.02). At 6 months, VAS scores were higher in the CSI group than the ESWT group (MD = 0.8 [0.38; 1.22], P = 0.1). At 6 months, a significant reduction in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) was observed in the CSI group compared to PRP (MD = - 11.53 [- 16.62; - 6.43], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients suffering from plantar fasciitis, PRP achieved better VAS scores compared to CSI at 3 and 6-month follow-up. In addition, ESWT had better VAS score outcomes at 6 months compared to CSI. Regarding AOFAS score, PRP was more efficacious than CSI at 6 months of follow-up. Only through the development of high-quality, large-scale longitudinal studies, will the findings and conclusions of this meta-analysis be strengthened and influence our clinical practice in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

II.

Impacts of Ultrasonogram-Guided, Intra-fascial, Autologous, Activated Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Quasi-experimental Study

Background Plantar fasciitis is the most common cause of foot pain. Patients with plantar fasciitis typically present with 'first step pain,' which tends to decrease with activity and worse with heavy use. This study determines the effect of ultrasound-guided, single-dose, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Materials and methods It was a quasi-experimental trial carried out in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU), Dhaka, Bangladesh, from March 2019 to March 2022. A total of 148 patients diagnosed with chronic plantar fasciitis were selected as samples. A total of 75 patients were allocated to group A (intra-lesional injection of autologous PRP with conservative management) and 73 patients to Group B (only conservative management). Both groups of patients were allocated to conservative management with exercises, shoe modification, activities of daily living (ADLs) instruction, and oral paracetamol. Results This study shows that in group A, the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score significantly reduced to 1.47±0.51 after six months of single-dose PRP injection (p<0.001). In group B, the VAS score also decreased substantially after conservative treatment. Though in groups A and B, pain reduction was significant, in group A, the pain was decreased more compared to group B and statistically significant differences were found between the two groups at the 12th week and 24th week. The foot function index (FFI) scores decreased significantly in group A after a single dose PRP injection, compared with group B treated with conventional therapy. In group A, FFI scores decreased from 49.09±5.72 to 7.67±3.41. The study revealed a significant difference between study groups in the 12th week and 24th week regarding FFI scores. Conclusion Ultrasound-guided intra-lesional autologous PRP Injection is safe and effective and recommended in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis, especially in recalcitrant cases after the failure of conservative treatment and corticosteroid injection.

Advances in the Clinical Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Foot and Ankle: A Review

Autologous and recombinant biologic substances have been generated as a result of the research into the cellular features of the healing process. Orthobiologics are increasingly being used in sports medicine and musculoskeletal surgery. Nevertheless, clinical data are limited; consequently, further studies are required, particularly in foot and ankle pathologies. This review aims to provide evidence of the most recent literature results and ignite the interest of orthopedic specialists eager for an update about the most current discussion on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) clinical applications in the foot and ankle fields. Previous studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma can be beneficial in treating various conditions, such as chronic foot ulcers, osteoarthritis, Achilles tendinopathy, etc. Despite the positive effects of PRP on various musculoskeletal conditions, more prospective studies are needed to confirm its effectiveness at treating ankle and foot pathologies. In addition to clinical trials, other factors, such as the quality of the research and the procedures involved, must be considered before they can be used in patients. More long-term evaluations are needed to support or oppose its application in treating foot and ankle disorders. We present the most extensive review of PRP's clinical applications in the foot and ankle field.

Effects of therapeutic interventions on pain due to plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of different therapeutic interventions that have ever been evaluated in randomized controlled trials on pain due to plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

We searched different electronic databases until September 2022. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the overall certainty evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 236 studies met the study criteria, including 15,401 patients. Botulinum toxin MD -2.14 (CI: -4.15, -0.14), micronized dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane injection MD -3.31 (CI: -5.54, -1.08), dry needling MD -2.34 (CI: -4.64, -0.04), low-dye taping MD -3.60 (CI: -4.16, -3.03), low-level laser therapy MD -2.09 (CI: -2.28, -1.90), myofascial releases MD -1.79 (CI: -2.63, -0.94), platelet-rich plasma MD -2.40 (CI: -4.16, -0.63), radiofrequency MD -2.47 (CI: -4.65, -0.29), and stretching MD -1.14 (CI: -2.02, -0.26) resulted in being effective treatments for pain when compared to the control in the short term. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy MD -0.97 (CI: -1.13, -0.81)/MD -2.49 (CI: -3.17, -1.82) was effective for improving pain when compared to the control.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available studies, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that different therapeutic interventions seem to be useful strategies for improving pain in patients with plantar fasciitis. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy was effective in improving pain when compared to the control.

The Statistical Fragility of Platelet-Rich Plasma as Treatment for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Simulated Fragility Analysis

Background

Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain and can be a source of extensive physical disability and financial burden. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) offers a potentially definitive, regenerative treatment modality that, if effective, could change the current paradigm of PF care. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the clinical benefits of PRP for refractory PF offer inconsistent conclusions, potentially because of the broader limitations of using P value thresholds to declare statistical and clinical significance. In this study, we use the Continuous Fragility Index (CFI) and Quotient (CFQ) to appraise the statistical robustness of data from RCTs evaluating PRP for treatment of PF.

Methods

RCTs comparing outcomes after PRP injection vs alternative treatment in patients with chronic PF were evaluated. Representative simulated data sets were generated for each reported outcome event using summary statistics. The CFI was determined by manipulating each data set until reversal of significance (α=0.05) was achieved. The corresponding CFQ was calculated by dividing the CFI by the sample size.

Results

Of 259 studies screened, 20 studies (59 outcome events) were included in this analysis. From these simulations, the median CFI for all events was 9, suggesting that varying the treatment of 9 patients would be required to reverse trial significance. The corresponding CFQ was 0.177. Studies with reported P value <.05 were more statistically fragile (CFI=10, CFQ=0.122) than studies with reported P value >.05 (CFI=5, CFQ=0.179). Of 36 outcome events reporting lost to follow-up data, 10 events (27.8%) lost ≥9 patients.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that, on average, the statistical fragility of RCTs evaluating PRP for nonoperative PF therapy is at least comparable to that of the sports medicine literature. However, several included studies had concerningly low simulated fragility scores. Orthopaedic surgeons may benefit from preferentially relying on studies with higher CFI and CFQ values when evaluating the utility of PRP for chronic PF in their own clinical practice. Given the importance of RCT data in clinical decision making, fragility indices could help give context to the stability of statistical findings.

Level of Evidence

Level I, systematic review.

Autologous Blood Injection With Dry-Needling vs Dry-Needling Alone Treatment for Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Autologous blood injection (ABI) for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis has been promoted as an approach to improve outcomes over standard dry-needling approaches. The purpose of this trial was to investigate if there are improved outcomes following an ultrasonography-guided ABI compared to dry needling alone for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

A double-blinded (participant-blinded and observer-blinded) RCT within a single clinic enrolled 90 patients with symptoms of plantar fasciitis that had failed to improve with a minimum of 3 months of rehabilitation. The mean age was 49.5±8.9 years, 67% were female, and the mean symptom duration was 40.0±28.2 months (range: 8 months-10 years). Participants were randomized to receive ABI or an identical dry-needle fenestration-procedure without coadministration of autologous blood. All participants received identical structured rehabilitation and were followed up at 2, 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Outcome measures included local foot pain, validated foot patient-reported outcome measures (Foot Function Index-revised, Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure), measures of general function and "ability" (EuroQol [EQ]-5D-5L, Oswestry Disability Index), specific measures of activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), and mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale).

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences seen at any time-point studied. There were a number of statistically significant within-group improvements for local foot pain and function in both groups comparing baseline/follow-up data. Overall, levels of pain improved by 25% by 6 weeks and by 50% at 6 months. There were improvements in some generalized function markers. Activity rates did not change, demonstrating that improvements in pain did not necessarily influence physical activity.

CONCLUSION

Coadministration of 3 mL of autologous blood had no additional effect compared to a dry-needling procedure alone for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Similar Benefits Seen After Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy or Autologous Blood Injection in Patients With Chronic Plantar Fasciitis-A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis after extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) or autologous blood injection (ABI).

DESIGN

Cohort study-retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

Hospital-based Sports Medicine Outpatient Clinic.

PATIENTS

One hundred two consecutive patients with chronic plantar fasciitis, treated with either radial-ESWT (rESWT) (n = 54) or ABI (n = 48), with minimum 3-month follow-up and 96% (98/102) having 6-month follow-up. Mean age 49.5 years and mean duration of symptoms 37.5 months before treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either 3 sessions of radial ESWT (one session per week for 3 weeks), or a single ultrasound-guided dry needling and ABI (3 mL whole autologous blood). All patients received standardized after-care, including progressive structured home exercise program of flexibility, strengthening, and proprioception exercises.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS) for self-reported "average pain" and "average stiffness" values. Secondary outcome measures included assessments of local foot function [including Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), revised-Foot Function Index] as well as markers of mental health functioning (HAD), global health (EQ-5D-5L), and physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire).

RESULTS

This study demonstrated statistically significant improvements in self-reported measures of pain and local foot function after either procedure at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, but no statistically significant differences were seen between groups at any time-period studied. At 6 months, the average pain using a 0 to 10 NRS was improved from 6.8 ± 1.8 to 4.0 ± 2.7 (P < 0.001) after ESWT and from 7.1 ± 1.6 to 3.8 ± 2.7 (P < 0.001) after ABI. At 6 months, significant improvements were seen following either group using a number of different validated patient-rated outcome measures assessing local foot pain and function, eg, the total score for MOXFQ improved from 56.1 ± 12.8 to 42.5 ± 16.6 (P < 0.001) after ESWT and from 58.8 ± 13.2 to 44.2 ± 19.2 (P < 0.001) after ABI. However, measures of physical activity or wider aspects of patient functioning did not consistently improve from baseline values to follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic plantar fasciitis improved to statistically significant extent after either rESWT or ABI procedures, with no significant differences seen between groups. The lack of randomization in this pragmatic study is noted, which may have influenced the outcome seen. Potentially larger and more robust studies are required to investigate this treatment comparison further.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Associated With Microtenotomy in Lateral Epicondylitis – is a Tendon Tear Associated with the Therapeutic Response?

Objective

Ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, as well as needle tenotomy, are becoming increasingly popular in the treatment of epicondylitis. Whether ultrasound (US) findings predict the clinical benefit of these techniques is unclear at the moment. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the presence of tendon tear assessed by US and the therapeutic response of the PRP injection following needle microtenotomy in patients with epicondylitis.

Methodology

This is a retrospective observational study. Twenty-six patients with chronic (>three months) lateral epicondylitis recalcitrant to conservative treatment or corticosteroid injection. Patients underwent US-guided microtenotomy followed by PRP injection. Data regarding gender, age, US findings at baseline, and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores before and after intervention were collected. Pain improvement rates were calculated at several follow-up time points, namely one, three, six, and 12 months post-intervention. Results are stated as mean ± standard deviation.

Results

At the time of intervention, the mean age was 47.6±6.5 years, and 57.7% of patients were men. Overall, the mean initial NPRS score was 7.5±1.2, and there were no statistically significant differences in mean initial NPRS scores between the groups with or without tendon tear on the US imaging. The mean improvement rate at one, three, and six months was similar between patients with and without tendon tear. However, a statistically significant difference was observed at 12 months (73.1±37.6% vs. 16.0±21.9, p=0.029). 

Conclusions

Patients with tendon tear demonstrated a higher pain improvement rate at 12 months follow-up. This finding could predict the clinical response to this technique, thus allowing a better selection of the candidates.

Platelet-rich plasma has better mid-term clinical results than traditional steroid injection for plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recently, local platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has been gradually used in the treatment of plantar fasciitis (PF). However, compared with traditional steroid injection, the clinical results of local PRP injection for PF patients remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to focus on two questions as follows: (1) is PRP more effective than steroid to relieve pain in PF patients? (2) is PRP more effective than steroid to improve the foot and ankle function of PF patients?

HYPOTHESIS

The PRP could be more effective to relieve pain and improve the foot and ankle function in PF patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception to October 20, 2019. The data of clinical results, including visual analogue scale (VAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Finally, twelve randomized controlled trials (RCT), involving 653 PF patients, were enrolled. All enrolled trials were considered to be of high quality. The results showed that the VAS of the PRP group was significantly lower than that of the steroid group at 6-month (p=0.02), 1-year (p=0.02), and 1.5-year (p<0.00001) follow-up. The AOFAS scores of the PRP group were significantly higher than that of the steroid group at 1-year (p=0.005) follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Compared to local steroid injection, local autologous PRP injection is more effective in relieving pain and improving the foot and ankle function at mid-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

The 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement

This 2020 NBA Orthobiologics Consensus Statement provides a concise summary of available literature and practical clinical guidelines for team physicians and players. We recognize that orthobiologic injections are a generally safe treatment modality with a significant potential to reduce pain and expedite early return to play in specific musculoskeletal injuries. The use of orthobiologics in sports medicine to safely reduce time loss and reinjury is of considerable interest, especially as it relates to the potential effect on a professional athlete. While these novel substances have potential to enhance healing and regeneration of injured tissues, there is a lack of robust data to support their regular use at this time. There are no absolutes when considering the implementation of orthobiologics, and unbiased clinical judgment with an emphasis on player safety should always prevail. Current best evidence supports the following: Key Points There is support for the use of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. There is support for consideration of using leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma for patellar tendinopathy. The efficacy of using mesenchymal stromal cell injections in the management of joint and soft tissue injuries remains unproven at this time. There are very few data to suggest that current cell therapy treatments lead to any true functional tissue regeneration. Meticulous and sterile preparation guidelines must be followed to minimize the risk for infection and adverse events if these treatments are pursued.Given the high variability in orthobiologic formulations, team physicians must stay up-to-date with the most recent peer-reviewed literature and orthobiologic preparation protocols for specific injuries.Evidence-based treatment algorithms are necessary to identify the optimal orthobiologic formulations for specific tissues and injuries in athletes.Changes in the regulatory environment and improved standardization are required given the exponential increase in utilization as novel techniques and substances are introduced into clinical practice.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Comparative Studies

Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain, which often results in a significant limitation of daily activity. The objective of this review was to compare platelet-rich plasma injection (PRP) and corticosteroids injection in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library of clinical trials were searched in March 2019. Inclusion criteria were prospective comparative studies reporting functional scores or pain score with a minimum follow-up of 1 month. We excluded studies with patients younger than 18 years and patients with a history of surgical intervention, infection, or rheumatological disease. First author, publication year, sample size, type of intervention, outcome measures, and follow-up period were recorded. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was significantly better in the PRP group at 6 months' follow-up, with a lower visual analogue scale at 6- and 12-month intervals. The Foot and Ankle Disability Index and Roles-Maudsley score were similar in the 2 treatments at 3 and 6 months. PRP injection in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis is considered safe, with a favorable functional outcome and pain control at intermediate and long-term follow-up in comparison to corticosteroid injection.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used and proven to be effective, and lately platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used with mixed results.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing intralesional injections of PRP and steroid infiltration.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar including all level 1 and 2 studies from 2010 to 2019 was perfomed. American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and visual analog scale for pain scores were used as outcome variables. Publication bias and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tools. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system was used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. Heterogeneity was assessed with χ² and I² statistics.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the analysis. Nine studies had a high risk of bias. There was 1 study with high quality, 9 with moderate, 2 studies with low, and 3 with very low quality. The pooled estimate for the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score demonstrated nonsignificant differences at 1 month (P = .4) and 3 months (P = .076). At 6 months (P = .009) and 12 months (P = .009), it indicated significant differences in favor of PRP. The pooled estimate for visual analog scale demonstrated nonsignificant differences at 1 month (P = .653). At 3 months (P = .0001), 6 months (P = .002), and 12 months (P = .019), it yielded significant differences in favor of PRP.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PRP is superior to corticosteroid injections for pain control at 3 months and lasts up to 1 year. In the short term, there is no advantage of corticosteroid infiltration. However, the low study quality, high risk of bias, and different protocols for PRP preparation reduce the internal and external validity of these findings, and these results must be viewed with caution.

Platelet-rich plasma or extracorporeal shockwave therapy for plantar fasciitis

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of plantar pain which is prevalent among adults. Conservative tractions, invasive injections, shock therapies and also surgical procedures are known as beneficial methods in non-responsive cases. Here we evaluated and compared the injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP) and usage of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in pain reduction in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

This is a randomized clinical trial that was performed in 2017-2020 on patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who did not respond to conservative therapies. A total number of 110 patients with plantar fasciitis were entered based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were then divided into two groups. The pain of patients was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) before interventions. The first group underwent PRP injections while the second group underwent ESWT using Shock Master 500. Patients were visited 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks after interventions and the pain scores were noted using VAS.

RESULTS

Data of 104 patients were analyzed. Initial VAS scores of patients were also analyzed. These data indicated no significant differences between the pains of patients before interventions (P = 0.413). Pain evaluations in 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks after interventions with controlling age and sex showed significantly reduced VAS scores in both groups after interventions (P = 0.002). We should also note that pain in the PRP group reduced more than ESWT group and this difference was also significant (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Here we showed that PRP injections and ESWT are both beneficial in pain amelioration in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. We also indicated that PRP injections were associated with better pain reduction results compared to ESWT.

Therapeutic efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injection compared to corticosteroid injection in plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study summarizes all literature assessing the long term effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection compared to corticosteroid injection to relieve pain and improve function in Plantar Fasciitis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a PRISMA compliant systematic review of 5 databases and include a meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial data comparing the two injections.

RESULTS

Ten prospective trials were included with total number of 543 participants. The PRP group had significantly better pain scores at 3 months and 6 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

PRP injections provide better pain relief, compared to corticosteroids, in patients with plantar fasciitis.

Outcomes of platelet-rich plasma for plantar fasciopathy: a best-evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciopathy (PF) is a very common disease, affecting about 1/10 people in their lifetime. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) had been demonstrated to be useful in achieving helpful effects for plantar fasciopathy. The purpose of this study was to compare the pain and functional outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid (CS) or placebo for plantar fasciopathy through meta-analysis and provide the best evidence.

METHODS

Literature was searched systematically to explore related studies that were published in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Medline, SpringerLink, OVID, and ClinicalTrials.gov . Articles regarding comparative research about the outcomes of PRP therapy and CS or placebo injection were selected. Data of pain and functional outcomes was extracted and imported into Reviewer Manager 5.3 to analyze.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included and analyzed. Analysis results showed significant superiority of PRP in outcome scores when compared with CS (VAS: MD = - 0.85, P < 0.0001, I² = 85%; AOFAS: MD = 10.05, P < 0.0001, I² = 85%), whereas there is no statistical difference in well-designed double-blind trials (VAS: MD = 0.15, P = 0.72, I² = 1%; AOFAS: MD = 2.71, P = 0.17, I² = 0%). In the comparison of the PRP and the placebo, the pooled mean difference was - 3.76 (P < 0.0001, 95% CI = - 4.34 to - 3.18).

CONCLUSIONS

No superiority of PRP had been found in well-designed double-blind studies, whereas it is implied that the outcomes of PRP are better than placebo based on available evidence.

Comparison of midterm results of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) versus Steroid for plantar fasciitis: A randomized control trial of 118 patients

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis, which is a common cause of heel pain, often results in significant morbidity. In cases who are not responsive to initial conservative treatment, invasive procedures, often in the form of local infiltration of steroid are required. These procedures are associated with significant complications. Local Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) infiltration is an emerging addition to these treatments. However, whether it is more effective in reducing pain and improving function than other treatments (such as steroid injections or whole blood) remains controversial.

METHODS

Skeletally mature patients with plantar fasciitis who had failed conservative therapy were randomized using envelope method into 2 groups: PRP and Steroid group. The participants were assessed for pain using Visual Analog Scale on the day of presentation, and then after therapy at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. They were additionally assessed on final follow-up using AOFAS hind-foot Score.

RESULTS

118 patients were randomized into 2 groups: 58 patients to the PRP group and 60 to the Steroid group. PRP was associated with greater improvement in VAS score and resulted in superior AOFAS score at 6 months as compared to steroid injection. The authors did not find any local or systemic complications in any of the groups. The result and difference were more pronounced as the time from injection increased and maximal benefit was observed at 6 months follow-up. None of the patients needed a repeat injection at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Our study expands on the previous studies to provide a better evidence for superiority of PRP over local injection of steroid in plantar fasciitis, and the authors conclude that PRP provides better pain relief and function as compared to steroid injection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1 Prospective Randomized Control Trial (RCT).

Current Concepts of Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Plantar Fasciitis: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic foot pain constitutes a large portion of the chronic pain burden in the overall population. Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common and most easily identifiable causes of chronic foot pain. The syndrome has been estimated to cause 11 to 15% of foot pain visits, requiring professional care. Moreover, studies have suggested that 1 in 10 people will develop plantar fasciitis at some point in their life. Conservative management has been shown to be effective and considered first-line treatment. Minimally invasive treatment options are typically reserved for those who fail conservative management. With the advent of new techniques and improvements in current therapeutic options, there has been an expansion of available minimally invasive treatment options. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on the current understanding of minimally invasive treatments of plantar fasciitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that conservative management continues to be the first-line therapy, whereas other treatment options were those who failed conservative management using modern techniques that have shown improving effectiveness, with successful restoration of patient functionality, recovery, and satisfaction. However, a multitude of these minimally invasive treatment options are evolving.

CONCLUSION

While conservative management continues to be the mainstay of treatment for plantar fasciitis, multiple minimally invasive treatment options are emerging with potential effectiveness in reducing pain and improving the function.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Elbow Epicondylitis and Plantar Fasciitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), as a promising alternative to traditional corticosteroid (CS), is now increasingly used in the treatment of elbow epicondylitis (EE) and plantar fasciitis (PF). To date, however, the synthesis of information on the clinical efficacy of PRP versus CS is limited with divergent conclusions.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of PRP and CS injections in reducing pain and improving function in EE and PF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Online databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for prospective studies evaluating PRP versus CS injections for EE or PF. Independent reviewers undertook searches, screening, and risk-of-bias appraisals. The primary outcomes of interest were pain and function in both the short term (1-3 months) and the long term (≥6 months).

RESULTS

Twenty trials with 1268 participants were included. For EE, PRP provides a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in pain, with a very large effect size of -1.3 (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.7) when compared with CS, but the evidence level was low. For EE, there was moderate evidence that CS provides a statistically meaningful improvement in pain in the short term, with a medium effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.08-1.03) as compared with PRP; this improvement might not be clinically significant. For PF, there was low evidence that PRP provides a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in function (American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society score), with a very large effect size of 1.94 (95% CI, 0.61-3.28). There were no significant differences between the groups in improvement in function in EE and pain and short-term function in PF, but the quality of the evidence was low.

CONCLUSION

The use of PRP yields statistically and clinically better improvement in long-term pain than does CS in the treatment of EE. The use of PRP yields statistically and clinically better long-term functional improvement than that of CS in the treatment of PF.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background:

Plantar fasciitis is the most common cause of plantar heel pain. Several recent randomized control trials (RCTs) have been published comparing the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids (CSs) for the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Purpose:

To perform a systematic review of RCTs to compare whether PRP or CS injections result in decreased pain levels and improved patient outcomes in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were screened according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify RCTs comparing PRP and CS injections for plantar fasciitis. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were compared between groups at 1, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months, where possible. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan, and P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results:

A total of 9 RCTs were identified comparing 239 patients with PRP with 240 patients with CS injections. At the follow-up time points, including 1-1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months, there were statistically significant differences in VAS scores in favor of PRP (P = .004, P < .00001, P < .00001, and P < .00001, respectively). At 1 and 3 months, there was no difference in AOFAS scores (P = .76 and P = .35, respectively). However, at 6 and 12 months, there was a difference in AOFAS scores in favor of PRP (P < .00001 and P < .00001, respectively).

Conclusion:

In patients with chronic plantar fasciitis, the current clinical evidence suggests that PRP may lead to a greater improvement in pain and functional outcome over CS injections.

Post-Procedure Protocols Following Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post-PRP protocols.

LITERATURE SURVEY

A systematized review of the literature on post-PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018.

METHODOLOGY

After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta-analysis was not performed.

SYNTHESIS

Eighty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight-bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2-7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2-3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4-6 weeks following injection.

CONCLUSION

Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post-PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post-PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post-PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.

Platelet Concentrates in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Platelet concentrates (PCs), mostly represented by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are autologous biological blood-derived products that may combine plasma/platelet-derived bioactive components, together with fibrin-forming protein able to create a natural three-dimensional scaffold. These types of products are safely used in clinical applications due to the autologous-derived source and the minimally invasive application procedure. In this narrative review, we focus on three main topics concerning the use of platelet concentrate for treating musculoskeletal conditions: (a) the different procedures to prepare PCs, (b) the composition of PCs that is related to the type of methodological procedure adopted and (c) the clinical application in musculoskeletal medicine, efficacy and main limits of the different studies.

Corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Corticosteroid injection is frequently used for plantar heel pain (plantar fasciitis), although there is limited high-quality evidence to support this treatment. Therefore, this study reviewed randomised trials to estimate the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials that compared corticosteroid injection to any comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and function, categorised as short (0 to 6 weeks), medium (7 to 12 weeks) or longer term (13 to 52 weeks).

Results

A total of 47 trials (2989 participants) were included. For reducing pain in the short term, corticosteroid injection was more effective than autologous blood injection (SMD -0.56; 95% CI, − 0.86 to − 0.26) and foot orthoses (SMD -0.91; 95% CI, − 1.69 to − 0.13). There were no significant findings in the medium term. In the longer term, corticosteroid injection was less effective than dry needling (SMD 1.45; 95% CI, 0.70 to 2.19) and platelet-rich plasma injection (SMD 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.06). Notably, corticosteroid injection was found to have similar effectiveness to placebo injection for reducing pain in the short (SMD -0.98; 95% CI, − 2.06, 0.11) and medium terms (SMD -0.86; 95% CI, − 1.90 to 0.19). For improving function, corticosteroid injection was more effective than physical therapy in the short term (SMD -0.69; 95% CI, − 1.31 to − 0.07). When trials considered to have high risk of bias were excluded, there were no significant findings.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this review, corticosteroid injection is more effective than some comparators for the reduction of pain and the improvement of function in people with plantar heel pain. However, corticosteroid injection is not more effective than placebo injection for reducing pain or improving function. Further trials that are of low risk of bias will strengthen this evidence.

Registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016053216.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2749-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Platelet-Rich Plasma Use on Pain in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Amid extensive debate, evidence surrounding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for musculoskeletal injuries has rapidly proliferated, and an overall assessment of efficacy of PRP across orthopaedic indications is required.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Does PRP improve patient-reported pain in musculoskeletal conditions? and (2) Do PRP characteristics influence its treatment effect?

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science libraries were searched through February 8, 2017. Additional studies were identified from reviews, trial registries, and recent conferences.

STUDY SELECTION

All English-language randomized trials comparing platelet-rich therapy with a control in patients 18 years or older with musculoskeletal bone, cartilage, or soft tissue injuries treated either conservatively or surgically were included. Substudies of previously reported trials or abstracts and conference proceedings that lacked sufficient information to generate estimates of effect for the primary outcome were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

DATA EXTRACTION

All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Agreement was high between reviewers with regard to included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 78 randomized controlled trials (5308 patients) were included. A standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.5 was established as the minimum for a clinically significant reduction in pain. A reduction in pain was associated with PRP at 3 months (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.20) and sustained until 1 year (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.39). Low- to moderate-quality evidence supports a reduction in pain for lateral epicondylitis (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.23) and knee osteoarthritis (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.41) at 1 year. PRP characteristics did not influence results.

CONCLUSION

PRP leads to a reduction in pain; however, evidence for clinically significant efficacy is limited. Available evidence supports the use of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis as well as knee osteoarthritis.

Platelet-Rich Plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a promising treatment for musculoskeletal maladies and clinical data to date have shown that PRP is safe. However, evidence of its efficacy has been mixed and highly variable depending on the specific indication. Additional future high-quality large clinical trials will be critical in shaping our perspective of this treatment option. The heterogeneity of PRP preparations, both presently and historically, leads sweeping recommendations about its utility impossible to make. This heterogeneity has also made interpreting existing literature more complicated.

Current Clinical Recommendations for Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates current clinical literature on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP), in order to develop evidence-based recommendations for various musculoskeletal indications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Abundant high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis and LP-PRP for osteoarthritis of the knee. Moderate high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for patellar tendinopathy and of PRP injection for plantar fasciitis and donor site pain in patellar tendon graft BTB ACL reconstruction. There is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend PRP for rotator cuff tendinopathy, osteoarthritis of the hip, or high ankle sprains. Current evidence demonstrates a lack of efficacy of PRP for Achilles tendinopathy, muscle injuries, acute fracture or nonunion, surgical augmentation in rotator cuff repair, Achilles tendon repair, and ACL reconstruction. PRP is a promising treatment for some musculoskeletal diseases; however, evidence of its efficacy has been highly variable depending on the specific indication. Additional high-quality clinical trials with longer follow-up will be critical in shaping our perspective of this treatment option.

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma as conservative treatment in orthopaedics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in non-surgical orthopaedic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and SCOPUS. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies and checked reference lists to identify additional studies.

RESULTS

We found 36 randomised controlled trials (2,073 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 20 to 225). Twenty-eight studies included patients with lateral epicondylitis or plantar fasciitis. PRP was compared to local steroids injection (19 studies), saline injection (6 studies), autologous whole blood (4 studies), local anaesthetic injection (3 studies), dry needling injection (3 studies), and to other comparators (4 studies). Primary outcomes were pain and function scores, and adverse events. On average, it is unclear whether or not use of PRP compared to controls reduces pain scores and functional score at short- (up to 3 months) and medium- (4-6 months) term follow-up. The available evidence for all the comparisons was rated as very low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias in most of the selected studies. There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis, which documents the very marginal effectiveness of PRP compared to controls, does not support the use of PRP as conservative treatment in orthopaedics.

Effects of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of plantar fasciitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain, which often results in significant morbidity. There have been several treatment options that are used for plantar fasciitis, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, orthoses, physical therapy, and steroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other treatments in patients with plantar fasciitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched to identify relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of PRP and other treatments on plantar fasciitis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The main outcomes included changes from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS), and Roles-Maudsley score (RMS). Results were expressed as weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving a total of 445 patients with plantar fasciitis were included. Among these studies, 9 compared PRP with steroid, and 1 compared PRP with whole blood.Four studies were categorized as being at low risk of bias, and the remaining 6 as being at unclear risk of bias.Pooled estimates suggested that PRP had greater changes in VAS and AOFAS scores than other treatments. However, it had no benefit effect in the RMS.Subgroup analysis for VAS and AOFAS showed that PRP had superior effect than other treatments at 12 months, but not at the 1, 3, 6 months.Subgroup analysis based on treatment regimens demonstrated that PRP was more effective than steroid in the change from baseline in AOFAS, but not in VAS and RMS scores.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSION

PRP was as effective as other treatments in reducing pain and improving function in patients with plantar fasciitis. Subgroup analysis indicated that PRP had better effect than steroid in AOFAS Score and its effect was durable in a long term. However, considering the potential limitations in this study, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the current findings.

Platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for plantar fasciitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used as an alternative therapy for plantar fasciitis (PF) to reduce heel pain and improve functional restoration. We evaluated the current evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of PRP as a treatment for PF compared with the efficacy and safety of steroid treatments.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library) were searched from their establishment to January 30, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with steroid injections as treatments for PF. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodological quality. Outcome measurements were the visual analogue scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, and the Roles and Maudsley score (RMS). The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (n = 430) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant differences in the VAS were not observed between the 2 groups after 4 [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -1.10 to 2.23, P = .51, I = 89%] or 12 weeks of treatment (WMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.44, P = .30, I = 89%). However, PRP exhibited better efficacy than the steroid treatment after 24 weeks (WMD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.11, P = .03, I = 85%). Moreover, no significant differences in the FADI, AOFAS, and RMS were observed between the 2 therapies (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence supports the conclusion that PRP is superior to steroid treatments for long-term pain relief; however, significant differences were not observed between short and intermediate effects. Because of the small sample size and the limited number of high-quality RCTs, additional high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to validate this result.

The use of platelet-rich plasma to treat chronic tendinopathies: A technical analysis

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is blood plasma with a high concentration of autologous platelets which constitute an immense reservoir of growth factors. The clinical use of PRP is widespread in various medical applications. Although highly popular with athletes, the use of PRP for the treatment of tendinopathies remains scientifically controversial, particularly due to the diversity of products that go by the name of "PRP." To optimize its use, it is important to look at the various stages of obtaining PRP. In this literature review, we take a closer look at eight parameters which may influence the quality of PRP: 1) anticoagulants used to preserve the best platelet function, 2) the speed of centrifugation used to extract the platelets, 3) the platelet concentrations obtained, 4) the impact of the concentration of red and while blood cells on PRP actions, 5) platelet activators encouraging platelet degranulation and, hence, the release of growth factors, and 6) the use or nonuse of local anesthetics when carrying out infiltration. In addition to these parameters, it may be interesting to analyze other variables such as 7) the use of ultrasound guidance during the injection with a view to determining the influence they have on potential recovery.

Injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain, commonly resulting from plantar fasciitis, often results in significant morbidity. Treatment options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), orthoses, physical therapy, physical agents (e.g. extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), laser) and invasive procedures including steroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, clinical trials registries and conference proceedings. Latest search: 27 March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of plantar heel pain in adults were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome measures. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was significant, when a random-effects model was considered. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 39 studies (36 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 quasi-RCTs) that involved a total of 2492 adults. Most studies were small (median = 59 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 34 years to 59 years. When reported, most participants had heel pain for several months. The trials were usually conducted in outpatient specialty clinics of tertiary care hospitals in 17 countries. Steroid injection was given with a local anaesthetic agent in 34 trials. Follow-up was from one month to over two years. With one exception, trials were assessed at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding, including lack of confirmation of allocation concealment. With two exceptions, we rated the available evidence as very low quality, implying in each case that we are 'very uncertain about the estimate'.The 39 trials covered 18 comparisons, with six of the seven trials with three or four groups providing evidence towards two comparisons.Eight trials (724 participants) compared steroid injection versus placebo or no treatment. Steroid injection may lead to lower heel pain visual analogue scores (VAS) (0 to 100; higher scores = worse pain) in the short-term (< 1 month) (MD -6.38, 95% CI -11.13 to -1.64; 350 participants; 5 studies; I² = 65%; low quality evidence). Based on a minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) of 8 for average heel pain, the 95% CI includes a marginal clinical benefit. This potential benefit was diminished when data were restricted to three placebo-controlled trials. Steroid injection made no difference to average heel pain in the medium-term (1 to 6 months follow-up) (MD -3.47, 95% CI -8.43 to 1.48; 382 participants; 6 studies; I² = 40%; low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence for no effect on function in the medium-term and for an absence of serious adverse events (219 participants, 4 studies). No studies reported on other adverse events, such as post-injection pain, and on return to previous activity. There was very low quality evidence for fewer treatment failures (defined variously as persistent heel pain at 8 weeks, steroid injection at 12 weeks, and unrelieved pain at 6 months) after steroid injection.The available evidence for other comparisons was rated as very low quality. We are therefore very uncertain of the estimates for the relative effects on people with heel pain of steroids compared with other interventions in:1. Tibial nerve block with anaesthetic (2 trials); orthoses (4 trials); oral NSAIDs (2 trials); and intensive physiotherapy (1 trial).2. Physical modalities: ESWT (5 trials); laser (2 trials); and radiation therapy (1 trial).3. Other invasive procedures: locally injectable NSAID (1 trial); platelet-rich plasma injections (5 trials); autologous blood injections (2 trials); botulinum toxin injections (2 trials); cryopreserved human amniotic membrane injection (1 trial); localised peppering with a needle (1 trial); dry needling (1 trial); and mini scalpel needle release (1 trial).We are also uncertain about the estimates from trials testing different techniques of local steroid injection: ultrasonography-guided versus palpation-guided (5 trials); and scintigraphy-guided versus palpation-guided (1 trial).An exploratory analysis involving pooling data from 21 trials reporting on adverse events revealed two ruptures of plantar fascia (reported in 1 trial) and three injection site infections (reported in 2 trials) in 699 participants allocated to steroid injection study arms. Five trials reported a total of 27 participants with less serious short-term adverse events in the 699 participants allocated steroid injection study arms. Reported treatments were analgesia, ice or both. Given the high risk of selective reporting for these outcomes and imprecision, this evidence was rated at very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality evidence that local steroid injections compared with placebo or no treatment may slightly reduce heel pain up to one month but not subsequently. The available evidence for other outcomes of this comparison was very low quality. Where available, the evidence from comparisons of steroid injections with other interventions used to treat heel pain and of different methods of guiding the injection was also very low quality. Although serious adverse events relating to steroid injection were rare, these were under-reported and a higher risk cannot be ruled out.Further research should focus on establishing the effects (benefits and harms) of injected steroids compared with placebo in typical clinical settings, subsequent to a course of unsuccessful conservative therapy. Ideally, this should be preceded by research, including patient involvement, aimed to obtain consensus on the priority questions for treating plantar heel pain.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciopathy

PURPOSE

To determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are associated with improved pain and function scores when compared with corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciopathy.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was performed for studies comparing PRP injections and corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciopathy. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was pain and function score at three and six month follow-up. Sensitivity analysis was performed for high quality studies and randomised studies.

RESULTS

Ten studies totalling 517 patients were included. Seven studies were randomised. All studies included patients who had failed conservative measures and excluded patients with systemic illness and other causes of foot pain. Studies reported outcomes using the visual analogue score (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS). At 3-month follow-up, PRP injections were associated with improved VAS scores (standard mean difference [SMD], -0.66; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.02; p = 0.04) and AOFAS scores (SMD, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.16-3.58; p = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, there was no difference in VAS score (SMD, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.65 to 0.3; p = 0.17) or AOFAS scores (SMD, 1.69; 95% CI, -1.06 to 4.45; p = 0.23). No studies reported adverse event rates or cost analysis. There was no difference in pain or function score at one, six- or 12-month follow-up. Sensitivity analyses of high-quality studies showed no differences between the PRP and steroid group at any of the follow-up points.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP injections are associated with improved pain and function scores at three month follow-up when compared with corticosteroid injections. Information regarding relative adverse event rates and cost implications is lacking. Further, large-scale, high-quality, randomised controlled trials with blinding of outcome assessment and longer follow-up are required.

Lower Extremity Injury Patterns in Elite Ballet Dancers: Ultrasound/MRI Imaging Features and an Institutional Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Interventions

BACKGROUND

Altered biomechanics from repetitive microtrauma, such as long practice hours in en pointe (tip of the toes) or demi pointe (balls of the feet) predispose ballet dancers to a multitude of musculoskeletal pathologies particularly in the lower extremities. Both ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are radiation-sparing modalities which can be used to confidently evaluate these injuries, with ultrasound (US) offering the added utility of therapeutic intervention at the same time in experienced hands.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this paper were: (1) to illustrate the US and MRI features of lower extremity injury patterns in ballet dancers, focusing on pathologies commonly encountered at a single orthopedic hospital; (2) to present complementary roles of both ultrasound and MRI in the evaluation of these injuries whenever possible; (3) to review and present our institutional approach towards therapeutic ultrasound-guided interventions by presenting explicit cases.

METHODS

Online searches were performed using the search criteria of "ballet biomechanics" and "ballet injuries." The results were then further narrowed down by limiting articles published in the past 15 years, modality (US and MRI), anatomical region (foot and ankle, hip and knee) and to major radiology, orthopedics, and sports medicine journals.

RESULTS

Performing ballet poses major stress to lower extremities and predisposes dancer to several musculoskeletal injuries. These can be adequately evaluated by both US and MRI. US is useful for evaluating superficial structures such as soft tissues, tendons, and ligaments, particularly in the foot and ankle. MRI provides superior resolution of deeper structures such as joints, bone marrow, and cartilage. In addition, US can be used as a therapeutic tool for providing quick symptomatic improvement in these athletes for who "time is money".

CONCLUSION

Performing ballet may cause major stress to the lower extremities, predominantly affecting the foot and ankle, followed by the knee and hip. US and MRI play complementary roles in evaluating various orthopedic conditions in ballet dancers, with US allowing for dynamic evaluation and guidance for interventions.

Platelet-rich plasma in orthopedic therapy: a comparative systematic review of clinical and experimental data in equine and human musculoskeletal lesions

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to present and critically appraise the available information on the efficacy of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in equine and human orthopedic therapeutics and to verify the influence of study design and methodology on the assumption of PRP's efficacy. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Bireme and Google Scholar without restrictions until July 2013. Randomized trials, human cohort clinical studies or case series with a control group on the use of PRP in tendons, ligaments or articular lesions were included. Equine clinical studies on the same topics were included independently of their design. Experimental studies relevant to the clarification of PRP's effects and mechanisms of action in tissues of interest, conducted in any animal species, were selected.

RESULTS

This review included 123 studies. PRP's beneficial effects were observed in 46.7% of the clinical studies, while the absence of positive effects was observed in 43.3%. Among experimental studies, 73% yielded positive results, and 7.9% yielded negative results. The most frequent flaws in the clinical trials' designs were the lack of a true placebo group, poor product characterization, insufficient blinding, small sampling, short follow-up periods, and adoption of poor outcome measures. The methods employed for PRP preparation and administration and the selected outcome measures varied greatly. Poor study design was a common feature of equine clinical trials. From studies in which PRP had beneficial effects, 67.8% had an overall high risk of bias. From the studies in which PRP failed to exhibit beneficial effects, 67.8% had an overall low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Most experimental studies revealed positive effects of PRP. Although the majority of equine clinical studies yielded positive results, the human clinical trials' results failed to corroborate these findings. In both species, beneficial results were more frequently observed in studies with a high risk of bias. The use of PRP in musculoskeletal lesions, although safe and promising, has still not shown strong evidence in clinical scenarios.