Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Pain and Muscle Strength in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis

Effect of platelet-rich plasma versus placebo or corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP) injections for managing pain in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of IA-PRP.

Methods

A total of 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected from various scientific databases, all of which compared PRP to either a placebo or an active comparator, such as corticosteroids (CS), in the treatment of KOA. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), along with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated for each study. A subgroup analysis was conducted for the pain scores, comparing leukocyte-poor and leukocyte-rich PRP with either a placebo or CS. The evidence was synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

There were 2406 participants in all included studies; 1223 were in the PRP versus placebo group and 1183 were in the PRP versus corticosteroid group. The IA-PRP showed significant improvement of VAS, and WOMAC scores compared to placebo (P < 0.00.05), except KOOS score (P > 0.05). All pain scores were highly sinficant improved with IA-PRP, compared to IA-CS (P < 0.05). Additionally, the leukocyte rich PRP was efficasious than leukocyte poor PRP (P < 0.05) improving the all pain scores at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

PRP treatment showed better results than placebo and corticosteroids in terms of reducing pain and improving function in KOA patients. Furthermore, lecocyte rich PRP is more effective than lecocyte poor PRP [PROSPERO, CRD42024540507].

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.

PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: The Improvement Is Clinically Significant and Influenced by Platelet Concentration: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising therapeutic intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA), attracting substantial clinical and research attention. However, the clinical relevance of the treatment benefit remains controversial.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP compared with placebo in patients with knee OA in terms of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and to investigate the possible influence of platelet concentration on the clinical outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis. Level of evidence 1.

METHODS

The search was conducted on 5 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science) using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing PRP and placebo injections to treat knee OA, written in the English language, with no time limitation. The effects were quantified at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up points. Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were used, with subanalyses based on platelet concentration performed using a 1,000,000 ± 20% platelets/µL cutoff. The MCID values (VAS, 1.37; WOMAC, 6.4) were used to interpret clinical improvement. The articles' quality was assessed using the Revised Tool for Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.

RESULTS

Among the 5499 articles retrieved, 18 randomized controlled trials (1995 patients) were included. PRP presented statistically superior improvements in VAS and WOMAC scores compared with placebo at all follow-up points, exceeding the MCID at 3- and 6-month follow-up points for VAS and at all follow-up points for WOMAC. The subanalysis based on platelet concentration showed that high-platelet PRP provided clinically significant pain relief with the improvement exceeding the MCID compared with placebo at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up points. In contrast, low-platelet PRP failed to offer a clinically perceivable benefit in terms of VAS score. WOMAC results showed that both products provided a clinically significant improvement at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. This benefit was maintained up to the 12-month follow-up in the high-platelet group but not in the low-platelet group, where the improvement compared with placebo did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that PRP offered clinically relevant functional improvement at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up points and pain relief at 3- and 6-month follow-up points compared with placebo for the treatment of knee OA. Platelet concentration was found to influence treatment efficacy, with high-platelet PRP providing superior pain relief and more durable functional improvement compared with low-platelet PRP.

Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Continuous Outcomes for the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Osteoarthritis Are Statistically Fragile: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials that assess the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and report a continuous primary outcome measure with statistical significance.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was performed on August 10, 2024. All randomized controlled trials addressing the use of PRP for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included that reported statistically significant primary continuous outcomes. The continuous fragility index (CFI) and continuous fragility quotient (CFQ) were calculated using approximative method, as previously described using the mean and standard deviation of the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

There were a total of 34 eligible outcomes available for analysis. The overall median CFI across all included studies was 5.7 (IQR: 4.8-9.9). The overall median CFQ across all included studies was 0.131 (IQR: 0.055-0.243). Loss to follow-up was greater than the CFI in only 3 of 34 eligible outcomes (8.8%). The most analyzed outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (n = 9) with a median CFI of 6.6 and median CFQ of 0.250. The outcome with the highest median CFI was the WOMAC stiffness subscale at 93. Spearman correlation analysis demonstrated a nonstatistically significant trend toward decreasing CFI (-0.497) and a statistically significant decrease in CFQ (-0.681; p = 0.03) with increasing grades of osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an overall median CFI of 5.7 and CFQ of 0.131 for RCTs that report statistically significant continuous outcomes for the use of PRP in treating symptomatic knee OA. Although there are no current guidelines regarding statistical fragility of continuous outcomes, these results can be considered fragile given statistical significance may be reversed with only a few changes in patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections from open preparation techniques do not pose a higher risk of joint infection: A systematic review of 91 randomized controlled trials and 5914 injections

Purpose

To compare the infection rate of intraarticular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) knee injections between open and closed techniques in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last decade.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed, Scopus and Virtual Health Library were accessed in October 2022 using the terms 'platelet-rich plasma', 'PRP', 'knee' and 'tibiofemoral' alone and in combination with Boolean operators AND/OR. RCTs published during the last 10 years evaluating PRP intra-articular knee injections were considered eligible. Studies were excluded if the kit/preparation technique was not described. Data were presented using individual studies' absolute values, totals, and pooled percentages. Publication bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool.

Results

Ninety-one studies met the predetermined eligibility criteria. Forty-one implemented a closed technique, while 50 were open. All studies implementing a closed technique disclosed their commercial kits. Only 16 studies (17.58%) failed to report joint infections. Among the studies reporting joint infections as outcomes, 30 implemented a closed technique with 1195 patients, 1921 intra-articular knee injections and 95.44% of patient follow-up. On the other hand, 45 of them implemented an open technique with 2290 patients, 3993 intra-articular knee injections and 97.07% of patient follow-up. No patient had a joint infection among the included studies. Thirty-three studies prepared their PRP in controlled environments (36.26%). Most studies did not report where the preparation occurred (48.35%). Only twelve studies disclosed using laminar flow during preparation (13.19%). The infection rate for both techniques was 0 per 1000 knee injections.

Conclusion

Open PRP preparation techniques do not pose a higher risk of joint infection and can lower manufacturing costs when appropriate facilities are available. However, PRP preparation setting and laminar flow implementation data are deficient, and minimal requirements for good manufacturing practices demand further studies while adhering to local and regional regulations.

Level of Evidence

Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Technology Overview Summary: Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Knee Osteoarthritis

The Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Knee Osteoarthritis Technology Overview is based on a systematic review of current scientific and clinical research. Through analysis of the current best evidence, this technology overview seeks to evaluate the efficacy of PRP for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The systematic literature review resulted in 54 articles: 36 high-quality and 18 moderate-quality. The findings of these studies were summarized to present findings on PRP versus control/placebo, acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, exercise, prolotherapy, autologous conditioned serum, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, hyaluronic acid, and ozone therapy. In addition, the work group highlighted areas that needed additional research when evidence proved lacking on the topic and carefully noted the potential harms associated with an intervention, required resource utilization, acceptability, and feasibility.

Most Publications Regarding Platelet-Rich Plasma Use in the Knee Are From Asia, Investigate Injection for Osteoarthritis, and Show Outcome Improvement: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate and synthesize the available literature related to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of knee pathologies and to provide recommendations to inform future research in the field.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were queried on October 6, 2023. All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence for screening and data extraction. Studies were included if they were human studies published in English with adult cohorts that received PRP as a procedural injection or surgical augmentation for knee pathologies with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and level of evidence Levels I-IV.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2,615 studies, of which 155 studies from 2006 to 2023 met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 9 months (±11.2 months). Most studies (75.5%) characterized the leukocyte content of PRP, although most studies (86%) did not use a comprehensive classification scheme. In addition, most studies were from Asia (50%) and Europe (32%) and were from a single center (96%). In terms of treatment, 74% of studies examined PRP as a procedural injection, whereas 26% examined PRP as an augmentation. Most studies (68%) examined treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Many studies (83%) documented significant improvements in PROMs, including 93% of Level III/IV evidence studies and 72% of Level I/II evidence studies, although most studies (70%) failed to include minimal clinically important difference values. The visual analog scale was the most-used PROM (58% of studies), whereas the Short Form Health Survey 36-item was the least-used PROM (5% of studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Most published investigations of knee PRP are performed in Asia, investigate procedural injection for osteoarthritis, and show significant outcome improvements. In addition, this review highlights the need for better classification of PRP formulations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, scoping Review of level I-IV studies.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

Supervised exercises have superior effects compared to home-based exercises for patients with knee osteoarthritis following platelet-rich plasma injection

The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of physiotherapist-supervised and home-based exercises after platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) injection in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Thirty women (mean age = 57.83 ± 7.26 years; mean weight = 72.13 ± 15.54 kg; mean height = 158.40 ± 4.49 cm; mean body mass index = 28.75 ± 6.18 kg/m2) were included. Patients randomized either supervised or home-basedexercise-group after PRP. Both groups performed 6-week (3 times/week) exercise. Pain, hip and knee muscle strength, and knee functions were assessed before and after exercise. The median improvement in the pain from baseline to 6th week was 3.80 (2.85-5.55) point in-supervised-exercise-group while it was 0.60 (-0.10-2.55) point in home-based-exercise-group (p = 0.002). The median improvement in knee function was 22.91 (13.02-30.20) in supervised-exercise-group overtime (p < 0.001). There was no improvement in knee function following home-based exercises (p = 1.000). The supervised-exercise-group revealed a significant improvement in hip (median difference = 32.00 (8.30-88.95), p = 0.011); quadriceps (median difference = 32.10 (21.65-60.05), p = 0.001) and hamstring (median difference = 27.90 (7.95-37.65), p = 0.022) strength overtime. The physiotherapist-supervised exercises after PRP had better effects on pain and knee function than the home-based exercises.

Platelet-rich plasma for jumper's knee: a comprehensive review of efficacy, protocols, and future directions

PURPOSE

This comprehensive review evaluates the current state of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment for jumper's knee, also known as patellar tendinopathy. The aim is to assess the efficacy of PRP as a therapeutic option compared to other available procedures, investigate the benefits and potential drawbacks of PRP infiltration, and provide insights into the optimal protocols for PRP preparation and administration.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of English articles published up to June 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases. Studies evaluating PRP for treating jumper's knee or patellar tendinopathy were analyzed to assess the current state of research in this field.

RESULTS

PRP has demonstrated promising results in promoting cellular remodeling and accelerating the healing process in the jumper's knee. It shows potential benefits in pain reduction, improved function, and accelerated recovery. However, the efficacy of PRP varies depending on patient characteristics, disease severity, and the specific administration methodology. Establishing standardized PRP preparation and administration protocols are necessary to optimize its effectiveness. Further research is needed to define appropriate patient selection criteria and refine the application of PRP therapy in patellar tendinopathy management.

CONCLUSION

Jumper's knee is commonly managed conservatively, but there is a lack of consensus on further treatment options. PRP treatment holds promise in promoting tissue healing and repair. However, standardized protocols for PRP preparation and administration, as well as optimal dosage and number of injections, require further investigation to enhance its efficacy. Continued research efforts are necessary to ascertain the precise role of PRP and its refinement in the management of patellar tendinopathy.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy: An Effective Approach for Managing Knee Osteoarthritis

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a promising non-invasive therapeutic intervention for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) that has generated significant interest due to anecdotal accounts of its efficacy, resulting in reduced recovery time in various orthopedic interventions. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of PRP in managing KOA. Specifically, it seeks to determine the extent to which PRP can treat KOA patients effectively, alleviate KOA symptoms, and improve patient outcomes. Additionally, the review aims to identify the optimal concentration and composition of PRP required to achieve therapeutic results in KOA. Furthermore, the review investigates whether PRP can modify the synovial environment structurally and immunologically to improve outcomes in KOA patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Orthogate, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase of clinical trials investigating PRP treatment in KOA patients in the last five years. The results indicated that PRP is effective in treating KOA patients. Evidence shows that PRP therapy can alleviate pain, enhance joint function, increase range of motion, and improve mobility in KOA patients. PRP was effective in treating KOA when the mean platelet concentration of PRP treatment was 4.83 to 5.91 times higher than the baseline whole blood platelet concentration. However, studies investigating PRP with a mean platelet concentration of 3.48 to 4.04 times higher than baseline failed to demonstrate statistically significant improvements. PRP therapy slowed down KOA progression, which validates its effectiveness in impeding further structural damage and arresting the degenerative impact of the disease. Nonetheless, further investigation is necessary to examine how PRP therapy can modify the progression of the disease. Furthermore, future research should identify the most effective platelet concentration levels that provide optimal symptom relief. There is a need for further research to identify the specific PRP configuration that is most pertinent in a clinical setting, as there is a lack of standardization in PRP manufacturing protocols, including the variety of experimental setups and dosing schedules utilized in different studies.

The Influence of Industry Affiliation on Randomized Controlled Trials of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Industry funding and corporate sponsorship have played a significant role in the advancement of orthopaedic research and technology. However, this relationship raises concerns for how industry association may bias research findings and influence clinical practice.

PURPOSE

To determine whether industry affiliation plays a role in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs published between 2011 and the present comparing PRP versus hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, or placebo for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis was performed. To determine industry affiliation, the conflict of interest, funding, and disclosure sections of publications were assessed, and all authors were assessed through the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. Studies were classified as industry affiliated (IA) or non-industry affiliated (NIA). The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies (6 IA and 31 NIA) were available for analysis. Overall, 19 studies (51.4%) reported PRP as favorable compared with other treatment options, while 18 studies (48.6%) showed no significant differences between PRP and other treatment methods. There was no significant difference in qualitative conclusions between the IA and NIA groups, with the IA group having 3 favorable studies and 3 analogous studies and the NIA group having 16 favorable studies and 15 analogous studies (P = .8881). When comparing IA versus NIA studies using 6- and 12-month Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, there were no significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated that qualitative conclusions and outcome scores were found to not be associated with industry affiliation. Although the results of this study suggest that there is no influence of industry involvement on RCTs examining PRP, it is still necessary to carefully evaluate pertinent commercial affiliations when reviewing recommendations from studies before adopting new treatment approaches, such as the use of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Systematic review registration

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

How Does Platelet-Rich Plasma Compare Clinically to Other Therapies in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in interest in the use of biological therapies in orthopaedic conditions such as knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of these therapies, but it still lacks consistent results.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of PRP intra-articular injection compared with other nonsurgical methods for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies published before January 2021. The primary outcomes were pain, function, and failure of treatment. Risks of bias of all trials were assessed using a Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System was used to assess the quality of evidence of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies with 3035 participants were included. Analysis of this review focused on comparing PRP with hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, and saline, as we believe they are the most relevant comparisons with the most studies available. At 6-month follow-up, PRP was as effective as and in some studies more effective than other therapies regarding pain, function, and stiffness. However, current evidence is of low or very low quality and is based on trials with high risk of bias and great heterogeneity among them. No significant difference among treatments was found concerning major adverse events and treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

Although studies suggest that PRP may be more effective than or at least as effective as other modalities of nonsurgical treatment for knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, function, and adverse events, serious limitations and methodological flaws are considerable in the current literature. Therefore, the authors are not able to make recommendations for clinical practice regarding PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

A randomized control trial of platelet-rich plasma in supporting the recovery of postpartum levator ani muscle trauma

BACKGROUND Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is mostly caused by childbirth levator ani muscle (LAM) trauma. We hypothesized that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy could support the recovery of LAM in postpartum trauma. METHODS A prospective, single-blind, randomized control study was enrolled in primigravid women from November 2016 to July 2019 at 21 health facilities in Jakarta, Indonesia. Subjects were injected with autologous PRP or placebo at LAM during perineorrhaphy after childbirth. The primary outcome was regaining LAM strength and reducing levator hiatal area at 3 months postpartum. The LAM strength was examined by perineometer (cmH₂O), and levator hiatal area was examined by transperineal ultrasound (cm²) at antenatal and 3 months after delivery. Mann–Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for analysis. The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03021954. RESULTS Among 240 women, 58 were eligible for analysis. There were no differences in LAM strength and levator ani hiatal area at 3 months postpartum between the two groups (p = 0.583 and p = 0.185, respectively). CONCLUSIONS PRP therapy did not show a difference in the muscle recovery healing process.

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of activated and non-activated platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown to be clinically effective in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Notwithstanding, some inconsistences remain due to methodological differences in PRP preparation such as the use (or not) of activation strategies. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of non-activated PRP would be as effective as activated PRP in patients with knee OA.

METHOD

All randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified through a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science up to June 2022. Pre- and post-injection pain and function scores were collected. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model and generic inverse variance method. Effect sizes were estimated using standardized mean differences (SMD).

RESULTS

Fourteen clinical trials involving 1292 subjects were included for meta-analysis. Exogenous activation of PRP revealed a significant pain relief (SMD, - 1.05 [95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.52]; p = 0.0001) and a significant functional improvement (SMD, - 1.21 [95% CI - 1.75 to - 0.67]; p < 0.0001) unlike studies describing the use of a non-activated PRP. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the effect size for both outcomes was not influenced by a single study.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review suggest that the use of an exogenously activated PRP is more effective in improving both pain and functional scores in patients with knee OA. Key Points • Results from meta-analysis suggest that exogenously activated PRP is clinically more effective than non-activated PRP. • The use of an activated PRP was more frequently reported by the included studies. • The most frequent method for activation was the use of calcium chloride (CaCl₂).

Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of "orthobiologics" continues to expand for patients who have knee osteoarthritis (OA). We sought to perform a systemic review of biologic therapies relative to comparative groups, including the following: (1) platelet-rich plasma (PRP); (2) bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs); (3) adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs); and (4) amniotic-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs). We assessed the following: (1) study methodologies; (2) cell preparations and formulations; (3) patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs); and (4) structural changes.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were queried (2013-2021) to conduct a systematic review of biologic therapies for knee OA, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eighty-two studies were included: PRP (51); BMSC (15); ADSC (11); and AMSC (5). Study evaluations were made using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. PROMs included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and the Visual Analog Scale. Structural change evaluations included ultrasounds, radiographs, or magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

PRP comprised a majority of the studies (n = 51), most with "fair" to "good" Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Studies had variable cell preparations and formulations, with comparison study results leading to inconsistent PROMs, and structural changes. A limited number of studies were included for BMSC, ADSC, and AMSC, all with similar findings to PRP.

CONCLUSION

Available literature evaluating "orthobiologics" for knee OA remain nonsuperior to comparison cohorts. Higher level studies with larger sample sizes and improved methodologies are warranted to suggest differences. Despite a growth of "orthobiologics" in clinics, this updated systematic review highlights the uncertain efficacy for use in knee OA.

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms and Structural Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) usage in orthopedics continues to rise, despite guidelines suggesting non-superiority to comparative cohorts. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on PRP efficacy using two clinical assessments: (1) Visual Analog Scale and (2) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. We assessed consistency and clinical relevancy by determining study heterogeneity (eg, sample sizes, ages, body mass index, arthritic severities, etc.). Comparative cohorts were: (A) hyaluronic acid (HA); (B) corticosteroid (CS); (C) normal saline (NS); and (D) exercise therapy. We performed sub-analyses of structural changes assessed on ultrasound, radiograph, or magnetic resonance imaging .

METHODS

We utilized PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to December 1, 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-four studies met criteria, with comparisons to: HA (n = 11); CS (n = 6); NS (n = 5); and exercise therapy (n = 3). Seven studies assessed structural changes. Evaluations utilized a methodological scoring system. I² statistics and forest plots pooled analyses and delineated study results.

RESULTS

PRP led to Visual Analog Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index improvements in most studies when compared to HA, CS, and NS (P ≤ .05). Comparison to exercise therapy resulted in inconclusive findings (P ≥ .05). However, substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥ 76%) was reported due to study variability. No differences were found when assessing structural changes or cartilage thickness by magnetic resonance imaging (standardized mean difference -0.01 [-0.19, 0.18], P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS

PRP may be associated with pain and functional improvements but was not clinically relevant (inconsistent study- and patient-metrics). In addition, PRP did not confer superiority when assessing knee-related structural changes.

Multiple platelet-rich plasma injections are superior to single PRP injections or saline in osteoarthritis of the knee: the 2-year results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The primary purposes of this study were to prove the efficacy of PRP injection therapy on knee pain and functions by comparing patients with mild to moderate OA with a placebo control group, and also to understand the effectiveness of multiple doses compared to a single dose. It was hypothesized that PRP would lead to more favorable results than the placebo at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

237 patients diagnosed with OA were randomly separated into 4 groups, who were administered the following: single dose of PRP (n: 62), single dose of sodium saline (NS) (n: 59), three doses of PRP (n: 63), and three doses of NS (n: 53). Clinical evaluations were made pre-treatment and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment, using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Result Score (KOOS), Kujala Patellofemoral Score, knee joint range of motion (ROM), measurements of knee circumference (KC), and mechanical axis angle (MAA) and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for the evaluation of pain.

RESULTS

The better score values in the groups were recorded at 3 and 6 months. Patients treated with PRP maintained better scores at 3, 6 and 12 months compared to the NS groups (p < 0.05). Multiple doses of PRP were seen to be more effective than single-dose PRP at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05). At the end of 24 months, there was no significant score difference across all the groups. The most positive change in scores was found in stage 2 OA, and the most positive change in ROM was in stage 3 OA patients. In the PRP groups, KC decreased more at 1 and 6 months (p < 0.05). Compared to other age groups, patients aged 51-65 years scored better at 6 months (p < 0.05). A negative correlation was determined with MAA scores (r = - 0.508, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In comparison to the placebo (NS), leukocyte-rich PRP treatment was determined to be effective in the treatment of OA. Multiple doses of PRP increase the treatment efficacy and duration. Of all the patients treated with PRP, the best results were obtained by patients aged 51-65 years, with lower MAA, and by K/L stage 2 OA patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

REGISTRATION

NCT04454164 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Osteotomies and Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Total knee replacement (TKA) is a frequent modality performed in patients with osteoarthritis. Specific circumstances can make it much more difficult to execute successfully, and additional procedures such as osteotomy may be required. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of osteotomies combined with TKA.

METHODS

In June 2022, a search PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials was undertaken, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The search included the terms "osteotomy" and "total knee arthroplasty".

RESULTS

Two subgroups (tibial tubercle osteotomy and medial femoral condyle osteotomy) were included in the meta-analysis. Further subgroups were described as a narrative review. The primary outcome showed no significant difference in favor to TTO. Secondary outcomes showed improved results in all presented subgroups compared to preoperative status.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a significant deficit of randomized control trials treated with osteotomies, in addition to TKA, and a lack of evidence-based surgical guidelines for the treatment of patients with OA in special conditions: posttraumatic deformities, stiff knee, severe varus, and valgus axis or patella disorders.

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.

Double-Spin Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma Is Predominantly Lymphocyte Rich With Notable Concentrations of Other White Blood Cell Subtypes

Purpose

To comprehensively characterize a double-spin leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) formulation and to compare it with whole blood (WB) by quantitatively assessing platelet and WB cell subtype concentrations in each.

Methods

Prospective human ex vivo analysis with 12 healthy adult men with ages ranging from 25 to 31 was performed in a controlled laboratory setting. The main outcome measure was the leukocyte profile of human LR-PRP.

Results

In LR-PRP, lymphocytes were the predominant WB cell type (11.94 ± 2.97 × 10³ cells/μL) followed by neutrophils (3.72 ± 1.28 × 10³ cells/μL). The mean cumulative percentage of granulocytes was 23% ± 8% and agranulocytes was 77% ± 18%. There was a significant difference observed between granulocyte and agranulocyte percentage within both WB (P = .004, [95% CI: (7%,31%)]) and LR-PRP (P < .0001, [95% CI: (42%,66%)]) groups. In addition, there was a significant difference observed between the WB and LR-PRP granulocyte percentages (P < .0001, [95% CI: (29%,43%)]) and between the WB and LR-PRP agranulocyte percentages (P < .0001, [95% CI: (30%,42%)]).

Conclusions

Our study found that LR-PRP is predominantly lymphocyte rich with notable concentrations of other WB cell subtypes, including neutrophils, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and large unstained cells. While these subtypes are not routinely reported, they may play a role in modulating the local inflammatory environment. We also found significant differences in WB cell subtype concentrations between WB and LR-PRP.

Clinical Relevance

PRP has been routinely used in many clinical practices without clear indications for its use and lacks standardization in its formulation. This study provides a comprehensive characterization of a broadly used PRP, LR-PRP, and further characterizes subtypes of WBC cells present in LR-PRP that have not been previously reported. Comprehensively reporting these subtypes in clinical trials of PRP is crucial to understanding how these cells participate in PRP’s therapeutic potential. This type of data can help standardize future PRP formulations and improve patient outcomes.

Effects of Different Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Combined with Platelet-Rich Plasma on Inflammatory Factor Levels in Patients with Osteoarthritis

Objective. To investigate the effects of different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs combined with platelet-rich plasma on inflammatory factor levels in patients with osteoarthritis. Methods. The clinic data of 120 patients with osteoarthritis who were treated in our hospital (June 2019-June 2021) were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients were given platelet-rich plasma. According to the different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs the patients received, they were equalized into diclofenac sodium group, celecoxib group, and iguratimod group, with 40 cases in each group. After treatment, the patients’ clinical efficacy was compared and analyzed. Results. After treatment, the pain degrees of the patients in the three groups were gradually reduced. After 4 weeks and 8 weeks of treatment, the statistical differences in the scores of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were found among the three groups. Specifically, compared with the other two groups, the iguratimod group had remarkably lower VAS scores ( $P<0.05$ ) and the celecoxib group had signally lower VAS scores compared with the diclofenac sodium group ( $P<0.05$ ). After treatment, the inflammatory factor levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the diclofenac sodium group were observably higher compared with the celecoxib group ( $P<0.05$ ), and the inflammatory factor levels in the celecoxib group were remarkably higher compared with the iguratimod group ( $P<0.05$ ). Before treatment, no notable difference in the Lysholm scores was found among the three groups, and the patients’ knee joint function was gradually improved after treatment. To be specific, after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, the iguratimod group had observably higher Lysholm scores compared with the other two groups ( $P<0.05$ ), and the celecoxib group had signally higher Lysholm scores compared with the diclofenac sodium group ( $P<0.05$ ). The iguratimod group got markedly lower Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score compared with the celecoxib group ( $P<0.05$ ); Compared with the diclofenac sodium group, the celecoxib group got remarkably lower WOMAC score ( $P<0.05$ ). During treatment, few patients suffered from mild gastrointestinal discomfort and hepatic dysfunction in the three groups, and no other severe adverse reactions were found. No statistical difference in the total incidence of adverse reactions among the three groups was observed ( $P>0.05$ ). Conclusion. The combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with platelet-rich plasma can further reduce the inflammatory reactions of the patients with osteoarthritis and improve their knee joint function. Significantly, the iguratimod, with high safety, has observably better effects on inhibiting inflammatory factors and improving knee joint function compared with diclofenac sodium and celecoxib.

Role of Platelets in Osteoarthritis-Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Role of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Osteoarthritis

Platelets are an essential component of hemostasis, with an increasing role in host inflammatory processes in injured tissues. The reaction between receptors and vascular endothelial cells results in the recruitment of platelets in the immune response pathway. The aim of the present review is to describe the role of platelets in osteoarthritis. Platelets induce secretion of biological substances, many of which are key players in the inflammatory response in osteoarthritis. Molecules involved in cartilage degeneration, or being markers of inflammation in osteoarthritis, are cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), interleukins (IL), type II collagen, aggrecan, and metalloproteinases. Surprisingly, platelets may also be used as a treatment modality for osteoarthritis. Multiple randomized controlled trials included in our systematic review and meta-analyses prove the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a minimally invasive method of pain alleviation in osteoarthritis treatment.

The Effect of Leukocyte Concentration on Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is hypothesized that leukocyte-poor (LP) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is preferred over leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all English-language studies comparing LP-PRP or LR-PRP with relevant controls or each other. The follow-up periods were 6 months and 12 months. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between baseline and follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were changes in the WOMAC pain subscale, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score between baseline and follow-up, and the incidence of local adverse reactions. Treatment outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference between treatments for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio for binary outcomes, with 95% credibility intervals. Treatment modalities were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Risk of bias was assessed using the relevant Cochrane tools, RoB 2 (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for prospective comparative studies (PCSs).

RESULTS

This network meta-analysis included 23 studies: 20 RCTs and 3 PCSs, with a total of 2,260 patients and a mean follow-up period of 9.9 months. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 9 studies had low risk, 7 had some concerns, and 4 had high risk. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the PCSs revealed that 1 study had low risk and 2 had moderate risk. We found no significant (p < 0.05) difference in all outcome measures and local adverse reactions between LP-PRP and LR-PRP. SUCRA rankings revealed that, for all outcome measures, LP-PRP is preferred to LR-PRP across follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Leukocyte concentration of PRP does not play a significant role in patient-reported outcome measures for knee OA. LP-PRP is preferred to LR-PRP according to SUCRA rankings, but this preference may not be important in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis compared to placebo and other intraarticular treatments.

DESIGN

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as the gray literature were searched on January 17, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP injections with placebo or other injectable treatments, in any language, on humans, were included. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane guidelines; quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-four RCTs, including 1403 knees in PRP groups and 1426 in control groups, were selected. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score favored PRP, with a statistically and clinically significant difference versus placebo at 12-month follow-up (P = 0.02) and versus HA (hyaluronic acid) at 6-month (P < 0.001) and 12-month (P < 0.001) follow-ups. A clinically significant difference favoring PRP versus steroids was documented for VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain (P < 0.001), KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) pain (P < 0.001), function in daily activities (P = 0.001), and quality of life (P < 0.001) at 6-month follow-up. However, superiority of PRP did not reach the minimal clinically important difference for all outcomes, and quality of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of platelet concentrates goes beyond its mere placebo effect, and PRP injections provide better results than other injectable options. This benefit increases over time, being not significant at earlier follow-ups but becoming clinically significant after 6 to 12 months. However, although substantial, the improvement remains partial and supported by low level of evidence. This finding urges further research to confirm benefits and identify the best formulation and indications for PRP injections in knee OA.

Platelet-Rich Plasma and Stem Cell Injections in the Treatment of Arthritis of the Knee

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell (SC) injections have become increasingly common in the treatment of knee arthritis. This systematic review was performed to answer the following questions: (1) What effects does intraarticular PRP injection have in the setting of knee arthritis? (2) What effects does intra-articular SC injection have in the setting of knee arthritis? (3) What adverse events have been reported in the literature from PRP injections for knee arthritis? (4) What adverse events have been reported in the literature from SC injections for knee arthritis? [Orthopedics. 2021;44(6):376-383.].

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Procedures to Treat Knee Pain Secondary to Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search via Medline and Cochrane Central databases was completed for randomized control studies published between January 2000 to April 2020 for the following therapies: Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). Data on the following variables were included: international Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL), and post-void residual (PVR). Standard mean differences between treatments were compared through a meta-analysis using transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to assess differences in treatment effect.

RESULTS

No significant difference in outcomes between therapies were noted for IPSS at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Although outcomes for rezum were only available out to 3 months, there were no consistently significant differences in outcomes when comparing Aquablation vs PAE vs Rezum. TURP PVR was significantly better than Urolift at 3-, 6-, and 12 months. No significant differences in minor or major AEs were noted.

CONCLUSION

Although significant differences in outcomes were limited, aquablation and PAE were the most durable at 12 months. PAE has been well studied on multiple randomized control trials with minimal adverse events while aquablation has limited high quality data and has been associated with bleeding-related complications.

Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections vs Placebo on Ankle Symptoms and Function in Patients With Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 3.4% of adults have ankle (tibiotalar) osteoarthritis and, among younger patients, ankle osteoarthritis is more common than knee and hip osteoarthritis. Few effective nonsurgical interventions exist, but platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are widely used, with some evidence of efficacy in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of PRP injections on symptoms and function in patients with ankle osteoarthritis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, block-randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed at 6 sites in the Netherlands that included 100 patients with pain greater than 40 on a visual analog scale (range, 0-100) and tibiotalar joint space narrowing. Enrollment began on August 24, 2018, and follow-up was completed on December 3, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 ultrasonography-guided intra-articular injections of either PRP (n = 48) or placebo (saline; n = 52).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the validated American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate less pain and better function; minimal clinically important difference, 12 points) over 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 100 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 45 [45%] women), no patients were lost to follow-up for the primary outcome. Compared with baseline values, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score improved by 10 points in the PRP group (from 63 to 73 points [95% CI, 6-14]; P < .001) and 11 points in the placebo group (from 64 to 75 points [95% CI, 7-15]; P < .001). The adjusted between-group difference over 26 weeks was -1 ([95% CI, -6 to 3]; P = .56). One serious adverse event was reported in the placebo group, which was unrelated to the intervention; there were 13 other adverse events in the PRP group and 8 in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with ankle osteoarthritis, intra-articular PRP injections, compared with placebo injections, did not significantly improve ankle symptoms and function over 26 weeks. The results of this study do not support the use of PRP injections for ankle osteoarthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register: NTR7261.

Novel assessment of leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma on functional and patient-reported outcomes in knee osteoarthritis: a pilot study

Background: Leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) has demonstrated to be beneficial for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA); however, reliable objective end points to accurately assess its therapeutic effects is lacking. Aim: To investigate the efficacy of LR-PRP as assessed by functional and patient-reported outcomes at early time points (6 weeks). Materials & methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 12 patients with diagnosed KOA (Kellgren Lawrence score of II-III), who underwent a single ultrasound-guided LR-PRP injection. Results: There was significant improvement in timed up and go, pain and quality of life scales and balance parameters. There were nonsignificant improvements in range of motion and gait parameters. Conclusion: LR-PRP demonstrates efficacy in meaningful end points for functional and patient-reported outcomes at early time points in patients with KOA.

Intra-Articular Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells, and Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Associated With Better Outcomes Than Hyaluronic Acid and Saline in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate clinical efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA), leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP), leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), adipose mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs), and saline (placebo) during 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Outcome assessment included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) pain subscore, WOMAC score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and treatment-related AEs. Main inclusion criteria were at least one of the aforementioned outcome measurements, a minimum follow-up period of 5 months, and >80% patient follow-up. Treatments combined with the use of other operations or drugs were excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. At 6 months, VAS scores and WOMAC pain subscores showed that AD-MSCs were the best treatment option (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.7%, SUCRA = 85.3%, respectively). According to WOMAC scores and subjective IKDC scores, LP-PRP was the most effective treatment (SUCRA = 86.0%, SUCRA = 80.5%, respectively). At 12 months, only AD-MSCs were associated with improved VAS scores compared with the placebo (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.93, 95% credibility interval [CrI], -41.71 to -0.78). Both LP-PRP and AD-MSCs were more beneficial than the placebo for improving WOMAC pain subscores (WMD = -30.08; 95% CrI, -53.59 to -6.25; WMD = -34.85; 95% CrI, -68.03 to -4.86, respectively). For WOMAC scores, LP-PRP and LR-PRP were significantly associated with improved WOMAC scores compared with the placebo after sensitivity analysis was performed (WMD = -35.26; 95% CrI, -64.99 to -6.01; WMD = -38.69; 95% CrI, -76.21 to -2.76). LP-PRP exhibited relatively better efficacy in improving subjective IKDC scores than the placebo (WMD = 13.67; 95% CrI, 4.05-23.39). Regarding safety, all treatments except for LP-PRP (relative risk = 1.83; 95% CrI, 0.89-4.64) increased treatment-related AEs compared with the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of current research findings, during 6 months of follow-up, AD-MSCs relieved pain the best; LP-PRP was most effective for functional improvement. During the 12-month follow-up, both AD-MSCs and LP-PRP showed potential clinical pain relief effects; functional improvement was achieved with LP-PRP. Unfortunately, AD-MSC/LP-PRP functional comparisons were only based on WOMAC scores due to missing IKDC scores. BM-MSCs seem to have potentially beneficial effects, but the wide credibility interval makes it impossible to draw a well-supported conclusion. HA viscosupplementation clinical efficacy was lower than that of biological agents during follow-up, which may be related to the properties of the drugs. Considering the evaluation of treatment-related AEs, LP-PRP is the most advisable choice; although the AEs of these treatments are not serious, they may affect treatment compliance and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Efficacy of different platelet-rich plasma injections in the treatment of mild-moderate knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of different numbered sets of injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of mild-moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A comprehensive search in three databases of Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed was conducted to find relevant articles that investigated the efficacy of PRP injection therapies in the treatment of mild-moderate knee OA through August 2020. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function scores were the primary outcomes and visual analogue scale (VAS) was the secondary outcome. The pooled improvements amongst different injection therapies were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the improvement of WOMAC pain were observed amongst 1-, 2-, and 3-injection therapies at 3- (P = .26) and 6-month (P = .13) follow-ups. For a 12-month follow-up, the difference amongst different therapies reached borderline significance (P = .05) in which 3-injection therapy had a significantly better improvement than 2-injection therapy (P = .02) and reached borderline significance compared with 1-injection (P = .07). However, no significant differences in the improvement of VAS scores were observed amongst three injection therapies for all the follow-up visits (P > .05). For WOMAC function score, 3-injection therapy performed significantly better than 1-injection (P < .00001) or 2-injection therapy (P < .0001) only at 12-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that 3-injection therapy of PRP in the treatment of mild-moderate knee OA had the best efficacy in pain relief and function improvement compared with 1- and 2-injection therapies.

Efficacy and Safety of Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma in Osteoarthritis Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common disease in aged adults. Intra-articular (IA) injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is an effective minimally invasive treatment for KOA. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with placebo or other conservative treatments.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis to identify relevant articles from online register databases such as PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score. The secondary outcome was the adverse event rate.

Results

A total of 895 articles were identified, of which 23 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were determined as eligible. Compared with placebo, PRP had a lower VAS score and higher IKDC subjective score at the 6^th month after treatment and significantly less WOMAC score during the follow-up period. Compared with oral NSAIDs, PRP gained a lower WOMAC score at the 6^th month after treatment. The VAS score decreased after treatment when reaching PRP and CS. As compared to the HA, the VAS score, WOMAC score, and IKDC subjective score all revealed better PRP results. There were no significant differences in adverse event rates comparing PRP versus placebo or HA. Different PRP applications did not show significant differences in VAS score in the 1^st month and WOMAC score in the 3^rd month after treatment.

Conclusion

To compare with the conservative treatments mentioned above, PRP is more effective in relieving symptoms. There were no significant differences between triple PRP application and single PRP application in short-term curative effect.

Treatment of knee osteoarthritic pain with platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review of clinical studies

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is secondary to degradation of articular cartilage, reformation of subchondral bone through degradation and proliferation as well as presence of synovitis. Materials & methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results: A total of 30 of the 48 comparators showed statistically significant superiority with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared with a control, while the other 16 comparators showed no significant difference between PRP and the comparator. Conclusion: We can only recommend PRP for patients with early-stage osteoarthritis (I or II) and who are aged below 65, based on our findings. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) recommendations, while studies reviewed were randomized controlled studies, and therefore, high grade, due to variance in imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency among the 37 studies, it would be reasonable to rate this paper as subjectively moderate.

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Pain and Function in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease commonly affecting the knee joints. It affects patients socially, psychologically and economically and rates of the disease have been increasing due to obesity and old age. Regardless of choosing a medically conservative approach, it is a challenge in the long term to provide OA patients efficient treatment with minimal side effects and long-term efficiency. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a convenient, low-cost and affordable treatment technique used in treating knee OA with encouraging efficient and safe outcomes. In this study we will investigate the effect of PRP on knee OA.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study involving 252 patients with different OA grades. The Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) system was used in classifying the affected knee by degenerative cartilage lesions as well as early and severe OA. All patients with a diagnosis of knee OA were screened in every visit before the injection, the pain was assessed by the 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and knee range of motion including flexion and extension was assessed by goniometer. Follow-up appointments were done on three-month intervals for a total of three visits for evaluation. Injection of PRP was given to all the patients with a maximum of four injections. The results were evaluated statistically according to the total number of follow-up visits.

Results

In grade II patients, the pain improved with the visits and the maximum improvement in flexion degree was noticed in patients who came for a total of three follow-up visits. In grade III patients, the most improvement in pain was in patients who came for three follow-up visits, while the most improvement in flexion degree was in patients who came for a total of two follow-up visits. Patients with grade IV who came for three follow-up visits showed the most improvement in pain and degree of flexion.

Conclusions

Intra-articular injections gave significant pain and flexion improvement in grades II, III and IV in OA patients, especially with multiple injection in the short-term follow-up. As a result, recommendation of repeated multiple injections up to four times is efficient in providing long time relief in knee OA.

Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Background:

The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis and the effects of leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) versus leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) are still controversial.

Purpose:

To assess the effectiveness of different PRP injections through a direct and indirect meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

A systematic literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) was performed to locate randomized controlled trials published through March 2019 that compared PRP with control treatment. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence, and meta-regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of trial characteristics. An indirect comparison was performed to assess the effects of LP-PRP and LR-PRP compared with hyaluronic acid (HA).

Results:

A total of 21 trials were included. A clinically important benefit for pain relief was seen for intra-articular PRP compared with intra-articular saline (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –1.38 [95% CI, –2.07 to –0.70]; P < .0001; I² = 37%) and corticosteroid solution injection (SMD = –2.47 [95% CI, –3.34 to –1.61]; P < .00001; I² = 47%). As a result of heterogeneity (I² = 89%), there was no conclusive effect compared with HA, even though the pooling effect provided clinically relevant pain relief (SMD = –0.59 [95% CI, –0.97 to –0.21]; P = .003). Indirect meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP.

Conclusion:

PRP injections are beneficial for pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis. Larger, randomized high-quality studies are needed to compare the effects of LP-PRP and LR-PRP.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A New Choice for Nonsurgical Treatment of OA? Results from a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease, causing joint pain, stiffness, and even disability. Guidelines recommend intra-articular injections as an alternative treatment to relieve OA symptoms for patients who demonstrate poor tolerability or compliance to oral administration of drugs. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a potential treatment for of OA. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (GCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and MSCs.

Design

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data Sources. Relevant studies, published from January 2000 to January 2020, in the PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and CKNI databases.

Methods

Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. Pain relief, functional improvement, improvement in joint stiffness, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were assessed.

Results

Twenty-five articles with 4642 patients were included. Overall, MSC therapy was the most effective treatment for pain relief (standardized mean difference compared with placebo = 3.61, 95% CI [1.87 to 5.35]). Both MSC and PRP therapies improved every symptom of OA effectively and have an advantage over HA and GCs which are recommended by guidelines. MSCs, PRP, HA, and GCs are tolerated well for patients in long-term treatment of OA compared with placebo.

Conclusions

The results show that MSCs relieve pain, stiffness, and dysfunction due to OA better than PRP, HA, and GCs and are not statistically correlated with greater safety concerns. More high-quality trials are needed to reconfirm the findings of this study, however, standardization of preparation of MSCs and PRP should be investigated in the future.

Efficacy of Autologous Conditioned Serum (ACS), Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and Steroid for Early Osteoarthritis Knee: A Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular injection therapy constituting corticosteroids, viscosupplements and blood-derived products are considered to have a key role in non-operative management of osteoarthritis knee. While corticosteroids and viscosupplements have proven short-term efficacy in early osteoarthritis; orthobiologics are gaining increased attention in osteoarthritis management. The aim of present study was thus to compare two commonly used biologics (platelet-rich plasma/PRP and autologous conditioned serum/ACS) to each other and to established therapies.

METHODS

After required institutional clearances, all patients presenting with early primary osteoarthritis knee who had failed initial conservative management and received only unilateral knee injection were included. Patients in the PRP group were compared to the other groups (comprising the HA/hyaluronic acid group, steroid group, and a matched cohort who had been administered ACS for the same indication earlier). Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire and Visual Analogue scale (VAS) pre-injection and at 6 months.

RESULTS

ACS and PRP did not have any significant difference in terms of either WOMAC score (p = 0.154) or VAS score at 6 months (p = 0.850). The scores for both these orthobiologics were better than the control groups (HA group and Steroid group). Between the two control groups, HA group had better VAS scores as compared to the Steroid group (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes following intra-articular injection of ACS and PRP are better than controls (HA and steroid), but a difference between the two orthobiologics could not be demonstrated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3b.

The impact of platelet-rich plasma on postoperative outcomes after spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological agent obtained by centrifuging a sample of blood and retrieving a high concentration of platelets and plasma components. The concentrate is then stimulated for platelet secretion of various growth factors and cytokines. Although it is not widely used in clinical practice, its role in augmenting bony union among patients undergoing spinal fusion has been assessed in several clinical studies. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to determine the efficacy of PRP use in spinal fusion procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies from all available dates. From eligible studies, data regarding the fusion rate and method of assessing fusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), and baseline and final visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected as the primary outcomes of interest. Patients were grouped by those undergoing spinal fusion with PRP and bone graft (PRP group) and those only with bone graft (graft-only group).

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 207 articles. Forty-five full-text articles were screened, of which 11 studies were included, resulting in a meta-analysis including 741 patients. Patients without PRP were more likely to have a successful fusion at the last follow-up compared with those with PRP in their bone grafts (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.84; p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to change in VAS scores (OR 0.00, 95% CI -2.84 to 2.84; p > 0.99) or change in EBL (OR 3.67, 95% CI -67.13-74.48; p = 0.92) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the additional use of PRP was not associated with any significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and was actually found to be associated with lower fusion rates compared with standard grafting techniques. Thus, PRP may have a limited role in augmenting spinal fusion.

Lack of standardization among clinical trials of injection therapies for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Purpose: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a debilitating, expensive, and prevalent disease, and interest in the non-surgical management of knee OA has grown recently. Our objective was to systematically assess the level of heterogeneity among all clinical trials and published studies regarding injections for knee osteoarthritis, in terms of treatment of interest, outcomes evaluated, and time points of outcome assessment. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized to review all published studies and publically available clinical trials from 1 January 2013 to 3 May 2019evaluating intra-articular injections to treat knee OA. Their treatment group and specifics of methodology were scrutinized and compared. Results: 84 published studies and 114 clinical trials were included. Within the 84 published studies, the most common injection treatment studied was hyaluronic acid [N = 22; 26.2%]. In total, 29 different injection treatment groups were utilized. The most common time point for patient evaluation post-injection was 6 months (N = 33 studies; 50.0%), and ranged from 1 week (N = 9 studies; 13.6%) to 7 years (N = 1 study; 1.5%). The most common patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure assessed in the included studies was Western Ontario and McMaster's University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) [N = 44 studies; 66.7%]. For the 114 clinical trials identified, the most common injection treatment studied is platelet-rich plasma in isolation (N = 19; 16.7%). Forty-two different injection treatment types/groups are utilized. The most common PRO measure assessed was WOMAC (N = 77 trials; 67.5%). Overall there were 34 different patient-reported outcome measures used. Conclusions: Research efforts to find the most effective injection therapy for knee OA continue with a tremendous number of injection therapies still being evaluated. Substantial heterogeneity exists in these completed and ongoing trials in terms of patient demographics, OA grades, outcome scores and relatively short-term timing of assessments, with no clear standardization of testing protocol despite proposing to answer the same clinical question. We recommend that studies of this genre going forward be standardized in terms of outcome measures and longer-term follow-up time points, and should incorporate functional assessment evaluations and imaging studies.

Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment is Consistently Effective for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: The Results of a Systematic Review of Treatment and Comparison to a Placebo Group

Background: Numerous studies have used autologous mesenchymal stem cell injections (AMSCI) to treat osteoarthritis. We hypothesized that AMSCI is an effective osteoarthritis treatment with increasing efficacy at higher doses. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for human clinical studies using AMSCI for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and a second search for placebo arms of injectate OA treatment. Inclusion criteria included treatment outcomes ratings both pre-treatment and at least 6 months post-treatment. Results: 45 AMSCI cohorts from 34 studies met criteria. All AMSCI cohorts showed improvement at mean 15.3 months post-treatment. Mean WOMAC and VAS scores improved at 6-months and at final follow-up (p < 0.0001 for all). Scores > 2 years were also significant (WOMAC p = 0.001/VAS p = 0.004). Results greatly exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at each time point. AMSCI improvement also substantially exceeded previously published 6-month placebo-treatment improvement. No dose-response relationship was seen. AMSCI cohorts showed continuing improvement ≥ 6 months, and continued upward at one year. Placebo scores were already trending downward by 6 months. Conclusions: AMSCI is a consistently significantly effective treatment for osteoarthritis. It should no longer be stated that data is insufficient to establish AMSCI efficacy for OA. Given its excellent safety profile, AMSCI should be widely used for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

The Clinical Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Disorders and Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In recent years, the interest in biological treatment of knee lesions has increased, especially the application of platelet-rich plasma is of particular note. The number of articles evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) efficacy in the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery has exponentially increased over the last decade. A systematic review with meta-analyses was performed by assessing selected studies of local PRP injections to the knee joint. The study was completed in accordance with 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A multistep search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed to identify studies on knee surgery and knee lesion treatment with PRP. Of the 4004 articles initially identified, 357 articles focusing on knee lesions were selected and, consequently, only 83 clinical trials were analyzed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to evaluate risk. In total, seven areas of meta-analysis reported a positive effect of PRP. Among them, 10 sub-analyses demonstrated significant differences in favor of PRP when compared to the control groups (p < 0.05). This study showed the positive effects of PRP, both on the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery; however further prospective and randomized studies with a higher number of subjects and with lower biases are needed.

The effects of platelet-rich plasma injection in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this updated meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of PRP in patients with knee or hip OA.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of PRP with other intra-articular injections. The outcomes of interest included Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC).

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs with 21 at knee OA and three at hip OA were included in this meta-analysis. The PRP injections significantly improved the WOMAC score, VAS score, IKDC score, and HHS score as compared with comparators. The WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function scores were also significantly better in the PRP group than in the control group. Most of the evaluated parameters that favored PRP were observed in knee OA but not in hip OA, at short-term (at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 months) but not long-term follow-up (at 18 months), in RCTs with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular PRP injection provided better effects than other injections for OA patients, especially in knee OA patients, in terms of pain reduction and function improvement at short-term follow-up. Key Points • This updated meta-analysis, based on great sample size and high-quality studies, evaluates the effects of PRP in patients with knee or hip OA. • Intra-articular PRP injection provided better effects than other injections for OA patients. • Most of the evaluated parameters that favored PRP were observed in knee OA at short term (at 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 months).

Autologous cell-free serum preparations in the management of knee osteoarthritis: what is the current clinical evidence?

Background

There is paucity in the current literature regarding clinical outcomes of autologous cell-free serum preparations. The objective of this paper is to collate the clinical evidence and review the results of intraarticular injections of autologous cell-free serum preparations in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A comprehensive English literature search was undertaken using the healthcare database website (https://hdas.nice.org.uk/). The PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane library databases were searched to identify all studies of autologous protein solution/autologous conditioned serum (ACS/APS) in the management of knee OA. We evaluated the reported clinical outcomes with respect to pain, function, morbidity, adverse effects and complications.

Results

Fifteen relevant articles were identified in the current literature. Outcomes following injection of ACS/APS have been reported in patients with age range (34–87 years) and unilateral or bilateral knee OA. Seven studies reported improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) whereas the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis instrument (WOMAC) score improved in nine studies. Considerable variation was noted in the injection technique and duration of post-procedure assessment with only one study reporting long-term follow-up beyond 24 months. Joint swelling and injection-site pain were reported to be the most common complications; only one study reported a case of septic arthritis. However, no evidence is available to clearly identify factors that may predict the outcomes following this procedure.

Conclusion

Current data from the clinical studies would suggest that the intraarticular administration of autologous cell-free serum preparations, such as ACS/APS, in patients with knee OA may improve pain and function, with limited morbidity. High-quality clinical trials with stratified patient cohorts, longer follow-up duration and robust reporting of outcome measures are essential to improve the understanding of the indications and clinical effectiveness of these novel products.

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Sport-Active Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Limited Return to Sport

Objective

To evaluate a cohort of sport-active patients suffering from cartilage degeneration and OA, in terms of clinical outcome and return to sport (RTS) after platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injective treatment.

Design

This study included forty-seven sport-active patients ≤50 years old with unilateral symptomatic knee cartilage degeneration or OA. Patients received 3 PRP injections and were prospectively evaluated at baseline and then at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up by IKDC subjective EQ-VAS, and Tegner scores. Furthermore, patients were asked about their RTS, in terms of return to any sport level or to their activity level before symptoms onset.

Results

IKDC subjective score improved significantly at all follow-ups, changing from 59.2 ± 13.6 to 70.6 ± 13 at 12 months and to 76.7 ± 12.5 at 24 months (p < 0.0005). A similar outcome was observed with the EQ-VAS score. Tegner score improved from 3.6 ± 1.4 to 4.8 ± 0.9 at 24 months (p < 0.0005). A similar outcome was observed with the EQ-VAS score. Tegner score improved from 3.6 ± 1.4 to 4.8 ± 0.9 at 24 months (p < 0.0005). A similar outcome was observed with the EQ-VAS score. Tegner score improved from 3.6 ± 1.4 to 4.8 ± 0.9 at 24 months (p < 0.0005). A similar outcome was observed with the EQ-VAS score. Tegner score improved from 3.6 ± 1.4 to 4.8 ± 0.9 at 24 months (

Conclusions

Sport-active patients affected by knee OA can benefit from PRP injections, with pain and function improvement over time. However, results are less satisfactory in terms of RTS since only half can achieve the same sport level as before the onset of symptoms. Patients undergoing PRP treatment should be made aware of their low chances to go back to high-impact sport activities.

Useful applications of growth factors for cardiovascular regenerative medicine

Novel advances for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) include regenerative approaches for fibrosis, hypertrophy, and neoangiogenesis. Studies indicate that growth factor (GF) signaling could promote heart repair since most of the evidence is derived from preclinical models. Observational studies have evaluated GF serum/plasma levels as feasible biomarkers for risk stratification of CVDs. Noteworthy, two clinical interventional published studies showed that the administration of growth factors (GFs) induced beneficial effect on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial perfusion, end-systolic volume index (ESVI). To date, large scale ongoing studies are in Phase I-II and mostly focussed on intramyocardial (IM), intracoronary (IC) or intravenous (IV) administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23) which result in the most investigated GFs in the last 10 years. Future data of ongoing randomized controlled studies will be crucial in understanding whether GF-based protocols could be in a concrete way effective in the clinical setting.

The influence of sample size and gender composition on the meta-analysis conclusion of platelet-rich plasma treatment for osteoarthritis

Objective

The magnitude of the therapeutic effects of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on osteoarthritis (OA) is still under debate. The goal of this study that was a systematic review of randomised controlled trials ​of PRP injections for the treatment of OA was to elucidate the therapeutic efficacy of PRP.

Methods

Electronic databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, EBSCO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ​were searched from inception to June 2018 for RCTs that compared PRP injections to controls in patients with OA. A random-effects approach was used to compile data and subgroups according to trial size (large trials versus small trials), patient profile (age and gender), and PRP preparation method was performed.

Results

Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. All results had unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Patients treated with PRP compared with control showed statistically relevant pain relief and function improvement at short term (standardised mean difference [SMD] ​= ​−0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.98 to −0.27, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.74, 95% CI: −1.11 to 0.36, P ​= ​0.0001, respectively), medium term (SMD ​= ​−0.53, 95% CI: −0.83 to −0.23, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.50, 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.25, P ​= ​0.0006), and long term (SMD ​= ​−0.69, 95% CI: −1.08 to −0.30, P ​= ​0.0006, SMD ​= ​−0.68, 95% CI: −0.1.09 to −0.27, P ​= ​0.001, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the data from large trials and from trials composed of less than 50% female patients revealed that therapeutic effects of the treatment are insignificant.

Conclusions

According to the currently available data, PRP injections are beneficial for pain relief and function improvement in patients with OA. This meta-analysis, however, demonstrated that the efficacy of PRP is related to sample size and gender composition. Thus, more randomised controlled trials of high quality and larger patient size, also including gender aspects, are required to understand this phenomenon.

The translational potential of this article

The translation potential of this meta-analysis is that provided another perspective to analyse the treatment effect of PRP for OA. In future research, phenotypes subpopulation and gender difference of OA patient should be considered for PRP treatment.