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

Effectiveness and safety of intra-articular interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis based on large randomized trials: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) through a systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

We searched CENTRAL and regulatory agency websites (inception-2023) for large, English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (≥100 patients/group) examining any intra-articular intervention.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pain intensity.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

physical function and safety outcomes. Pain and function outcomes were analyzed at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks post-randomization, and presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% credible intervals, 95% CrI). The prespecified minimal clinically important between-group difference (MID) was -0.37 SMD. Safety outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) (95% CrI).

FINDINGS

Among 57 RCTs (22,795 participants) examining 18 intra-articular interventions, usual care or placebo, treatment effects were larger in 35 high-risk-of-bias trials than in 22 low/unclear-risk-of-bias trials. In the main analysis (excluding high-risk-of-bias trials), triamcinolone had the highest probabilities of reaching the MID at weeks 2 and 6 (75.3% and 90%, respectively) with corresponding SMDs of -0.48 (95% CrI,-0.85 to -0.10) and -0.53 (95% CrI,-0.79 to -0.27) compared to placebo (1 trial). The complex homeopathic products Tr14/Ze14 showed therapeutic potential at week 6 compared to placebo (SMD:-0.42, 95% CrI,-0.71 to -0.11, 63.5% probability of reaching the MID, 1 trial). Hyaluronic acid had no effect on pain (SMD:-0.04, 95% CrI,-0.19 to 0.11, 11 trials) but a higher risk of dropouts due to adverse events (OR: 2.01, 95% CrI,1.08 to 3.77) and serious adverse events (OR: 1.86, 95% CrI, 1.16 to 3.03) than placebo.

CONCLUSION

Triamcinolone had the highest probabilities to have a treatment effect beyond the MID at weeks 2-6. Large RCTs with lower risk of bias indicate that the effects of 16 intra-articular interventions in knee or hip OA were smaller than the MID, and that most were consistent with placebo effects. Lack of evidence of long-term effectiveness underscores the need for further research beyond 24 weeks.

9. Chronic knee pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic knee pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs over 3 months. The most common is degenerative osteoarthritis (OA). This review represents a comprehensive description of the pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of OA of the knee.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic knee pain was retrieved and summarized. A modified Delphi approach was used to formulate recommendations on interventional treatments.

RESULTS

Patients with knee OA commonly present with insidious, chronic knee pain that gradually worsens. Pain caused by knee OA is predominantly nociceptive pain, with occasional nociplastic and infrequent neuropathic characteristics occurring in a diseased knee. A standard musculoskeletal and neurological examination is required for the diagnosis of knee OA. Although typical clinical OA findings are sufficient for diagnosis, medical imaging may be performed to improve specificity. The differential diagnosis should exclude other causes of knee pain including bone and joint disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondylo- and other arthropathies, and infections. When conservative treatment fails, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and radiofrequency (conventional and cooled) of the genicular nerves have been shown to be effective. Hyaluronic acid infiltrations are conditionally recommended. Platelet-rich plasma infiltrations, chemical ablation of genicular nerves, and neurostimulation have, at the moment, not enough evidence and can be considered in a study setting. The decision to perform joint-preserving and joint-replacement options should be made multidisciplinary.

CONCLUSIONS

When conservative measures fail to provide satisfactory pain relief, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended including psychological therapy, integrative treatments, and procedural options such as intra-articular injections, radiofrequency ablation, and surgery.

Mechanisms and applications of the regenerative capacity of platelets-based therapy in knee osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent joint disease in the elderly population and its substantial morbidity and disability impose a heavy economic burden on patients and society. Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most common subtype of OA, which is characterized by damage to progressive articular cartilage, synovitis, and subchondral bone sclerosis. Most current treatments for OA are palliative, primarily aim at symptom management, and do not prevent the progression of the disease or restore degraded cartilage. The activation of α-granules in platelets releases various growth factors that are involved in multiple stages of tissue repair, suggesting potential for disease modification. In recent years, platelet-based therapies, such as platelet-rich plasma, platelet-rich fibrin, and platelet lysates, have emerged as promising regenerative treatments for KOA, but their related effects and mechanisms are still unclear. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the biological characteristics and functions of platelets, classify the products of platelet-based therapy and related preparation methods. Moreover, we summarize the basic research of platelet-based regeneration strategies for KOA and discuss the cellular effects and molecular mechanisms. Further, we describe the general clinical application of platelet-based therapy in the treatment of KOA and the results of the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cellular Senescence and Inflammaging in the Bone: Pathways, Genetics, Anti-Aging Strategies and Interventions

Advancing age is associated with several age-related diseases (ARDs), with musculoskeletal conditions impacting millions of elderly people worldwide. With orthopedic conditions contributing towards considerable number of patients, a deeper understanding of bone aging is the need of the hour. One of the underlying factors of bone aging is cellular senescence and its associated senescence associated secretory phenotype (SASP). SASP comprises of pro-inflammatory markers, cytokines and chemokines that arrest cell growth and development. The accumulation of SASP over several years leads to chronic low-grade inflammation with advancing age, also known as inflammaging. The pathways and molecular mechanisms focused on bone senescence and inflammaging are currently limited but are increasingly being explored. Most of the genes, pathways and mechanisms involved in senescence and inflammaging coincide with those associated with cancer and other ARDs like osteoarthritis (OA). Thus, exploring these pathways using techniques like sequencing, identifying these factors and combatting them with the most suitable approach are crucial for healthy aging and the early detection of ARDs. Several approaches can be used to aid regeneration and reduce senescence in the bone. These may be pharmacological, non-pharmacological and lifestyle interventions. With increasing evidence towards the intricate relationship between aging, senescence, inflammation and ARDs, these approaches may also be used as anti-aging strategies for the aging bone marrow (BM).

Time to Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Post Intra-Articular Injection

Background: Disease-modifying treatments are not currently developed to target the underlying causes of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular (IA) injections are commonly used for patients that do not respond to non-pharmacological treatments, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, or pain medications to address solely KOA symptoms. Utilizing TKA as an endpoint in the KOA disease progression provides a basis to determine efficacy of this treatment pathway. The primary objective is to evaluate a large national database to determine the time between first injection and total knee arthroplasty in patients solely administered intra-articular IA, CS, and HA. Methods: A retrospective query was performed on a national, all-payer claims database (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO, USA), a composite of over 160 million Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant orthopedic records across all states and territories of the United States spanning 2016 to 2022. The database was queried to produce three distinct cohorts for analysis (PRP, HA, and CS). A 4:1 case match was conducted to compare cohorts receiving a subsequent TKA. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis analyzed the TKA-free survival of patients within each group at 6 months and 1 to 4 years. The log-rank test was performed for comparisons between survival cohorts. Results: The PRP cohort had a total population of 3240 patients, of which 71 (2.2%) received a subsequent TKA. The corticosteroid cohort had a total population of 1,382,572, of which 81,271 (5.9%) received a subsequent TKA. The HA cohort had a total population of 164,000, of which 13,044 (8.0%) received a subsequent TKA. Due to the low population within the PRP group, this group was excluded from comparison. The mean time to TKA from first injection in the HA group was 377.8 days, while in the corticosteroid group it was 370.0 days. The proportions of TKA-free survival for CS and HA when compared at 4 years post-injection was similar between groups (p = 0.05). Discussion and Conclusion: Patients that received only IA-corticosteroids or IA-hyaluronic acid had a similar length of time between the first injection and the total knee arthroplasty associated with the injected joint. This evidence provides information for clinicians and patients alike when contemplating these non-surgical injection modalities for KOA. The similarity observed between these treatments supports the need for future research to determine whether there is any potential for reduction in healthcare costs for KOA treatment prior to TKA.

Does the Combination of Platelet-rich Plasma and Supervised Exercise Yield Better Pain Relief and Enhanced Function in Knee Osteoarthritis? A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability with substantial healthcare costs, and efficient nonsurgical treatment methods are still needed. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and exercise therapy are used frequently in clinical practice. Whether PRP or PRP combined with exercise is more effective than exercise alone is unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Which treatment relieves knee osteoarthritis pain better: PRP alone, exercise, or PRP combined with exercise? (2) Does PRP alone, exercise, or PRP combined with exercise yield better results in terms of the WOMAC score, performance on the 40-m fast-paced walk test and stair climbing test, and the SF-12 health-related quality of life score?

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled, three-arm clinical trial, we recruited patients with mild-to-moderate (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade II or III) knee osteoarthritis with a minimum of 3 points on the 11-point numeric rating scale for pain. During the study period, 157 patients with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were screened and 84 eligible volunteers were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) into either the exercise group (28), PRP group (28), or PRP + exercise group (28). Follow-up proportions were similar between the groups (exercise: 89% [25], PRP: 86% [24], PRP + exercise: 89% [25]; p = 0.79). All patients were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner. There were no between-group differences in age, gender, arthritis severity, and baseline clinical scores (pain, WOMAC, functional performance tests, and health-related quality of life). The exercise group underwent a 6-week structured program consisting of 12 supervised individual sessions focused on strengthening and functional exercises. Meanwhile, the PRP group received three weekly injections of fresh, leukocyte-poor PRP. The PRP + exercise group received a combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome was knee pain over 24 weeks, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale for pain (ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst pain, with a minimum clinically important difference [MCID] of 2). The secondary outcome measures included the WOMAC index (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a lower level of disability and an MCID of 12), the durations of the 40-meter fast-paced walk test and stair climbing test, and the SF-12 health-related quality of life score. For the a priori sample size calculation, we used the numeric rating scale score for pain at 24 weeks as the primary outcome variable. The MCID for the numeric rating scale was deemed to be 2 points, with an estimated standard deviation of 2.4. Based on sample size calculations, a sample of 24 patients per group would provide 80% power to detect an effect of this size between the groups at the significance level of p = 0.05.

RESULTS

We found no clinically important differences in improvements in pain-defined as ≥ 2 points of 10-at 24 weeks when comparing exercise alone to PRP alone to PRP + exercise (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 3.8 ± 1.8 versus 1.4 ± 0.6; mean difference between PRP + exercise group and exercise group -0.5 [95% confidence interval -1.2 to 0.4]; p = 0.69). Likewise, we found no differences in WOMAC scores at 24 weeks of follow-up when comparing exercise alone to PRP alone to PRP + exercise (10 ± 9 versus 26 ± 20 versus 7 ± 6; mean difference between PRP + exercise group and exercise group -3 [95% CI -12 to -5]; p = 0.97). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcome metrics among the PRP + exercise and exercise groups.

CONCLUSION

PRP did not improve pain at 24 weeks of follow-up in patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis compared with exercise alone. Moreover, exercise alone was clinically superior to PRP alone, considering function and the physical component of health-related quality of life. Despite the additional costs and endeavors related to PRP products, the combination of PRP and exercise did not differ from exercise alone. The results of this randomized controlled trial do not support the use of PRP injections in the treatment of patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, exercise alone is the recommended treatment for reducing pain and enhancing function throughout this timeframe.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Effects of platelet-rich plasma combined with isometric quadriceps contraction on cartilage in a rat model of knee osteoarthritis

Background

Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or isometric contraction of quadriceps (ICQ) has shown positive effects in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, the synergistic effect of combining PRP and ICQ intervention (joint intervention) on cartilage repair has not been validated. Thus, this study aimed to explore the reparative effects of joint intervention on cartilage in a KOA rat model.

Methods

Fifty-four 2-month-old female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into the control group (CG, n = 6) and model group (injected with sodium iodoacetate, n = 48). After 1 week, six rats from the model group were randomly selected for validation. The remaining 42 rats were further divided into seven groups: PRP group (PRPG), ICQ group (ICQG), joint intervention group (JIG), normal saline group (NSG), acupuncture group (AG), normal saline and acupuncture group (NSAG) and model blank group (MBG). The intervention lasted for 4 weeks, with PRPG and JIG receiving PRP injections (twice) and ICQG and JIG undergoing ICQ (five times per week, 15 min each session).

Results

Histological staining with haematoxylin and eosin as well as transmission electron microscopy revealed severe cartilage damage in MBG, AG, NSAG and NSG, followed by PRPG and ICQG. JIG exhibited a more intact cartilage structure. Compared with JIG, the Mankin scores increased remarkably in PRPG, ICQG, AG, NSAG and NSG (P < 0.01). Relative mRNA expression levels showed the upregulation of IL-1β in ICQG, NSAG and NSG compared with JIG (P < 0.05) and the upregulation of IL-6, IL-18 and MMP-13 in AG and NSAG (P < 0.05). Compared with PRPG, IL-1β and IL-6 were upregulated in ICQG, AG, NSAG and NSG (P < 0.05). In addition, IL-18 was upregulated in AG (P < 0.01), and IL-18, MMP-13 and TNF-α were upregulated in NSAG (P < 0.05). Compared with ICQG, IL-1β, IL-18, MMP-13 and TNF-α were upregulated in NSAG (P < 0.05), and IL-1β and IL-18 were upregulated in AG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The combination of PRP and ICQ can alleviate inflammatory responses in cartilage, promote chondrocyte regeneration and facilitate matrix tissue repair. Compared with single interventions, a synergistic effect is observed.

The varying clinical effectiveness of single, three and five intraarticular injections of platelet-rich plasma in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the variations in clinical effectiveness among patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis who underwent intra-articular administration of platelet-rich plasma using single, triple, or quintuple injections.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients with grade I-III knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to three groups: PRP1 group, who received a single injection of platelet-rich plasma; PRP3 group, who received three PRP injections one week apart; PRP5 group, who received five PRP injections one week apart. The patients' conditions were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-VA3.1 version (WOMAC-VA3.1) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks 52 weeks follow up.

RESULTS

Out of the total participants, 106 patients (30 males and 76 females) completed the study. The primary outcome measure, WOMAC pain score, registered significant improvements across all groups when compared to pre-treatment levels. However, the application of 3 and 5 injections of platelet-rich plasma was substantially more effective than that of a single injection in reducing knee pain and stiffness, as well as enhancing physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. No statistically discernable difference was observed between PRP3 and PRP5 at all follow-up intervals, and there was no discernable difference between 3 and 5 PRP injections either. Mild side effects occurred in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of three or five injections of platelet-rich plasma is safe, substantially more effective than single injections, and leads to remarkable clinical improvement by significantly reducing knee pain, improving joint stiffness, and enhancing physical function in patients with grade I-III knee osteoarthritis. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the efficacy of three or five injections. Therefore, we recommend using three injections of PRP in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis of grade I-III.

Inadequate anticoagulation and hyperuricemia cause knee pain after platelet-rich plasma injection: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Platelet-rich plasma treatment delays the need for total knee replacement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, its use and preparation remain controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between anticoagulant use in the preparation of platelet-rich plasma and post-treatment pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additionally, we explored the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma over medium- and long-term follow-up periods and identified other factors that may affect treatment outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 225 patients with knee osteoarthritis, who underwent knee platelet-rich plasma treatment from June 2021 to January 2022, were examined at three study centres. Patients were categorised, based on the type and amount of anticoagulant used during platelet-rich plasma preparation, into 4% sodium citrate (SC) 0.6 mL, 4% SC 1 mL, 4% SC 2 mL, heparin 0.1 mL, and heparin 0.2 mL groups. We analysed the patients' basic information, pain after treatment, and inflammatory markers (i.e., interleukin 6, tumour necrosis factor-α, and hypersensitive C-reactive protein) in the joint fluid via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and joint fluid crystallisation. Additionally, we assessed the patients' Western Ontario and McMaster University scores and minimal clinically significant differences after treatment.

RESULTS

Patients in the 4% SC 0.6 mL and heparin 0.1 mL groups experienced less pain after platelet-rich plasma treatment than did patients in the high-dose anticoagulant group. The joint fluid of patients with pain in these groups had lower levels of inflammatory markers. Patients treated with SC had slightly better medium- and long-term therapeutic outcomes than did patients treated with heparin. Patients with poorly controlled hyperuricemia also experienced pain after platelet-rich plasma treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that platelet-rich plasma prepared using high-dose anticoagulants or administered to patients with poorly controlled hyperuricaemia may lead to moderate-to-severe knee pain and joint effusion after joint puncture therapy. Platelet-rich plasma had a therapeutic effect on knee osteoarthritis; however, its efficacy gradually decreased over time. SC anticoagulant is more suitable for platelet-rich plasma preparation than is heparin. Further studies are needed to understand the safety and the various factors influencing platelet-rich plasma therapy.

Core decompression combined with platelet-rich plasma-augmented bone grafting for femur head necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical potential of biologic augmentation in core decompression and bone grafting for femoral head necrosis is widely acknowledged, with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) being a frequently employed biologic adjunct. However, its clinical application is not standardized, and high-level evidence is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of core decompression and bone grafting combined with PRP for femur head necrosis.

METHODS

Several databases were systematically retrieved for randomized controlled trials comparing core decompression and bone grafting combined with or without PRP. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. The study is registered with PROSPERO under the code CRD42022361007, and it is also listed in the research registry under the identification number reviewregistry1537.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 642 participants (742 hips) were included. The pooled estimates revealed that when core decompression and bone grafting were combined with PRP, the Harris hip score (mean difference: 7.98; 95% CI: 5.77-10.20; P <0.001), visual analog scale (SMD: -0.68; 95% CI: -0.96 - -0.40; P <0.001) and the pain component of Harris hip score (SMD: 8.4; 95% CI: 4.12-12.68; P <0.001), and reduction of radiographic progression [risk ratio (RR): 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27-0.59; P <0.001] were superior to core decompression and bone grafting alone. Fewer patients with treatment failure (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.14-0.52; P <0.001) and higher good-to-excellent results (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.17-1.86; P <0.001) were observed in treatment groups than control groups. Meanwhile, the pooled analysis substantiated the superior safety profile of PRP (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.11-0.77; P =0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of core decompression and bone grafting with PRP is superior to the approach without PRP, demonstrating enhanced effectiveness in terms of function, pain relief, and radiographic progression. Additionally, it results in lower rates of treatment failure and adverse events. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate their effectiveness due to methodological and implementation limitations observed in the existing evidence.

Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatments for Treatment of Musculoskeletal Pathology

PURPOSE

To establish consensus statements on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty-five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement.

RESULTS

There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure-plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post-trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

An Update on Orthobiologics: Cautious Optimism

Orthobiologics are rapidly growing in use given their potential to augment healing for multiple musculoskeletal conditions. Orthobiologics consist of a variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma and stem cells that provide conceptual appeal in providing local delivery of growth factors and inflammation modulation. The lack of standardization in nomenclature and applications within the literature has led to a paucity of high-quality evidence to support their frequent use. The purpose of this review was to describe the current landscape of orthobiologics and the most recent evidence regarding their use.

Comparative effectiveness of intra-articular therapies in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis comparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with other treatment modalities

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive joint disease commonly treated with intra-articular injections, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), or corticosteroids (CS). This updated meta-analysis aims to enhance the statistical power of the results and provide comprehensive clinical evidence that reflects the most current research. By doing so, the authors aim to suggest a reliable estimate for the development of guidelines, addressing the pressing need for effective and minimally invasive treatment options.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Central were searched until March 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of intra-articular injectable therapies, including PRP, HA, CS, and placebo, in KOA. Data extraction involved baseline characteristics and outcome measures [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, KOOS, and IKDC scores] at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis, including subgroup analysis, assessment of heterogeneity, and publication bias, was conducted using Review Manager.

Results

Our meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 3696 patients demonstrated that PRP treatment resulted in significant pain relief compared to HA injections, as evidenced by improved WOMAC pain (MD: -0.74; 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.46; P≤0.00001; I 2=94%) and VAS pain (MD: -0.65; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.06; P=0.03; I2=97%) outcomes. Similarly, PRP showed greater efficacy in reducing WOMAC pain (MD: -8.06; 95% CI: -13.62 to -2.51: P=0.004; I 2=96%) and VAS pain (MD: -1.11; 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.59; P≤0.0001; I 2=68%) compared to CS injections, with the most significant improvement observed at 6 months.

Conclusions

PRP is an effective treatment for KOA. It provides symptomatic relief, has the potential to reduce disease progression, and has sustained effects up to 12 months. PRP offers superior pain relief and functional enhancement compared to CS and HA injections.

Joint interventions in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is among the most common diseases affecting both axial and appendicular joints and the lead cause of disability worldwide. OA incidence is rising due to extended life expectancy and the increasing obesity epidemic. Several joint interventions are available to manage pain and joint function in patients with OA, most of these treatments being widely applied using intra-articular injections. In this chapter, we will describe the different joint interventions available for the management of pain in OA focusing on intra-articular injections, including discussion on the evidence regarding the efficacy of these treatments, based on the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses available. We also discuss the importance of imaging in guiding these treatments, including the different imaging modalities available for intra-articular injection guidance, their advantages, and disadvantages. Finally, we briefly discuss safety data and the consensus regarding the most used intra-articular treatments to manage pain in OA.