Comparison of efficiency between platelet rich plasma and corticosteroid injection therapies in patients with Carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study

Injection therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Various injectants are available for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. This systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of different injection therapies in alleviating the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. Various databases were searched for relevant studies from inception until May 10, 2023. Eligible studies were identified using the patient (P), intervention (I), comparison (C), and outcomes (O) model, which involved (P) participants with carpal tunnel syndrome, (I) an intervention based on injection therapy, (C) the use of placebo or another injectant as a control treatment, and (O) the measurement of clinical and electrodiagnostic outcomes of interest. A total of 18 studies were included in the analysis. The network meta-analysis revealed that platelet-rich plasma is effective in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome in terms of symptom and pain relief and functional improvement in both the short and long term, whereas steroids are effective only in the short term. Additionally, injections of dextrose solution may offer long-term pain relief as well as short- and long-term symptom alleviation and functional improvement. The study findings suggest that platelet-rich plasma should be used as the first-line treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, with dextrose and steroids serving as alternative treatment options.

Current Insights into Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Clinical Strategies for Prevention and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a condition that is caused by medial nerve compression, resulting in symptoms such as numbness, tightness, or weakness in the hand.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to find out the genetic modulation, mechanism, available treatment, and recommendation for carpal tunnel syndrome at its specific stage.

METHODS

Almost 200 papers were searched for this review article, and 145 articles were selected. The literature was collected from different sources like Google scholar, PubMed, a directory of open-access journals, and science.gov by using keywords, such as treatment, risk factors, recommendation, and clinical features of carpal tunnel syndrome.

RESULTS

The most efficient non-surgical treatment is methylprednisolone acetate, which reduces inflammation by acting on the glucocorticoid receptor in conjunction with immunofilling. It has also been used successfully as a second-line drug for the treatment of patients with mild or moderate conditions in order to provide relief. New non-pharmacological options include laser therapy in acupuncture, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), and sham therapy. Modern treatments like TENS, laser therapy, splints, and injections of methylprednisolone acetate have been demonstrated to be helpful in sporadic situations. For patients with mild and moderate problems, more research should be conducted that includes the combination of these surgical and non-surgical treatments.

CONCLUSION

We propose a multifunctional panel construct and define standard data items for future research into carpal tunnel syndrome. A discussion on idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, risk factors, combination of therapies, using guidelines-based recommendations and treatment should be initiated.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Markov Cost-Effectiveness Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injections may be used to conservatively treat mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS.

METHODS

Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with mild-to-moderate CTS, unresponsive to conservative treatments, never previously treated with an injection or surgery, treated with a single injection of PRP, or methylprednisolone/triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from level-I/II studies, utility values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom severity (BCTQ-S), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional status (BCTQ-F), and costs from Medicare, published studies, and industry. Analyses were performed from healthcare/societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50 000 and $100 000. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From a healthcare perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$13.52/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), BCTQ-S: -$11.88/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$16.04/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 941.12 versus $375 788.21, BCTQ-S: $417 115.09 versus $356 614.18, and BCTQ-F: $421 706.44 versus $376 908.45. From a societal perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$1024.40/QALY, BCTQ-S: -$899.95/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$1215.51/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 171.63 versus $373 944.39, BCTQ-S: $416 345.61 versus $354 770.36, and BCTQ-F: $420 936.95 versus $375 064.63.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP injections were more cost-effective than methylprednisolone/triamcinolone injections from healthcare and societal perspectives for mild-to-moderate CTS.

Local injection therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Objective: Clinical research has shown that local injections for carpal tunnel syndrome reduce the symptoms of patients and enhance their quality of life considerably. However, there are several therapy options, and the optimal choice of regimen remains uncertain. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated the variations in clinical efficacy and safety of several medications for treating carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods: Computer searches of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to collect articles of randomized controlled trials on local injections for treating carpal tunnel syndrome from database creation till 10 June 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, and performed network Meta-analysis using Stata 17.0 software. Drug efficacy was assessed using symptom severity/function and pain intensity. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking was used to determine the advantage of each therapy. Results: We included 26 randomized controlled trials with 1896 wrists involving 12 interventions, such as local injections of corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, 5% dextrose, progesterone, and hyaluronidase. The results of the network meta-analysis showed the following: (i) symptom severity: at the 3-month follow-up, D5W combined with splinting (SUCRA = 95%) ranked first, and hyaluronidase (SUCRA = 89.6%) at 6 months; (ii) functional severity: either at the 3-month follow-up (SUCRA = 89.5%) or 6 months (SUCRA = 83.6%), iii) pain intensity: 5% dextrose in water combined with splinting was the most effective at the 3-month (SUCRA = 85%) and 6-month (SUCRA = 87.6%) follow-up. Conclusion: Considering the combination of symptoms/function and pain intensity, combining 5% dextrose in water with splinting is probably the treatment of choice for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. It is more effective than glucocorticoids and no adverse effects have been observed. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022370525.

Role for platelet rich plasma as an adjuvant therapy in wound healing and burns

Background

Platelet rich plasma (PRP) contains high concentrations of growth factors. Intuitively, these were thought to be of potential benefit in healing of chronic wounds, skin grafts and graft donor sites. This was echoed in retrospective studies and an individual case basis but had not been randomized.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out by two individuals, independently, on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases, according to PRISMA guidelines. All data analysis and statistics was pooled and analysed using the Cochrane RevMan Software.

Results

Split thickness grafts have been described by numerous authors, but PRP use did not offer a significant advantage in graft take in pooled results (MD 5.83, 95% CI − 0.69 to 12.25, random-effects, p = 0.08). The analysis of included randomized controlled trials has shown favourable split-thickness skin graft donor site healing in the PRP group (MD − 5.55, 95% CI − 7.40 to − 3.69, random-effects, p =  < 0.00001) compared to the control group. For carpal tunnel syndrome, the pooled results showed no difference in functional scores vs steroid injections (SMD − 0.68, 95% CI − 1.47 to 0.10, randomeffects, p = 0.09) or indeed splinting groups.

Conclusions

With the current body of evidence, we conclude that the use of PRP as an adjuvant therapy in skin grafts, burns, carpal tunnel surgery or scars cannot be rationalised. A potential use of PRP is in donor site management but the cost of this would be difficult to justify.

Level of evidence: Not ratable.

Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis of Current Evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Recently, there was a series of clinical studies focusing on local injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the safety and efficacy of PRP in these CTS patients remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to compare PRP with other conservative treatments in treatment of CTS patients.

Methods: We systematically searched from electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE) up to 10 December 2021. The data of clinical results were extracted and analyzed by RevMan Manager 5.4.

Results: Finally, eight randomized controlled studies, involving 220 CTS patients undergoing local injection of PRP were enrolled in this systematic review. All enrolled trials were considered to be of high quality. In the short-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly lower in symptom severity scale (SSS) compared with the control group (MD = −2.00; 95% CI, −3.15 to −0.85; p = 0.0007; I² = 0%). In the mid-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly effective than the control group in the visual analogue scale (MD = −0.63; 95% CI, −1.22 to −0.04; p = 0.04; I² = 61%), SSS (MD = −3.56; 95% CI, −4.93 to −2.18; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%), functional status scale (MD = −2.29; 95% CI, −3.03 to −1.56; p < 0.00001; I² = 45%), sensory peak latency (MD = −0.39; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.19; p = 0.0001; I² = 0%) and cross-sectional area of median nerve (MD = -0.20; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.10; p = 0.0002; I² = 0%). In the mid-long-term efficacy, the PRP group was only significantly lower in SSS compared with the control group (MD = −2.71; 95% CI, −4.33 to −1.10; p = 0.001; I² = 38%).

Conclusion: Local PRP injection is more effective than other conservative treatments in terms of mid-term efficacy in relieving pain, improving wrist function and symptoms, reducing MN swelling, and partially improving electrophysiological indicators. However, the long-term adverse side and consensus on standardization of PRP in CTS patients still need further large-scale trials.

Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection on Mild or Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), we conducted this meta-analysis, as well as proposed a protocol for its application in curative processes.

Methods

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PRP for the management of mild or moderate CTS were included in this study. Database search was conducted from study inception to July 2020, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We used visual analogue scores (VAS) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) as evaluation tools for primary outcomes. Second outcomes comprised cross-sectional area (ΔCSA) and electrophysiological indexes including distal motor latency (DML), sensory peak latency (SPL), motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), compound muscle action potential (CMAP), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP). The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted with the evidence of heterogeneity. Egger' test was used to investigate publication bias.

Results

9 RCTs were finally screened out with 434 patients included. Control groups comprised corticosteroid injection in 5 trials, saline injection in 1 trial, and splint in 3 trials. At the 1st month after follow-up, only ΔCSA between the PRP group and the control group showed significant difference (P < 0.05). In the 3rd month, there were statistically significant differences in VAS, BCTQ, SPL, SNCV, and ΔCSA between two groups (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were found in the remaining outcomes. In the 6th month, there were statistically significant differences at BCTQ (P < 0.05) in primary outcomes and ΔCSA (P < 0.05) in secondary outcomes between two groups. As to adverse events in PRP injection, only one study reported increased pain sensation within 48 h after injections.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that the PRP could be effective for mild to moderate CTS and superior to traditional conservative treatments in improving pain and function and reducing the swelling of the median nerve for a mid-long-term effect. To some extent, the electrophysiological indexes also improved after PRP injection compared with others conservative treatments.