Platelet-rich plasma injection versus surgical and medical treatment of mild-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. Surgery is considered when symptoms persist despite the use of non-surgical treatments. It is unclear whether surgery produces a better outcome than non-surgical therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of carpal tunnel release compared with non-surgical treatment in the short (< 3 months) and long (> 3 months) term.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update, we included studies from the previous version of this review and searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP until 18 November 2022. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical technique with any non-surgical therapies for CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

The 14 included studies randomised 1231 participants (1293 wrists). Eighty-four per cent of participants were women. The mean age ranged from 32 to 53 years, and the mean duration of symptoms from 31 weeks to 3.5 years. Trial sizes varied from 22 to 176 participants. The studies compared surgery with: splinting, corticosteroid injection, splinting and corticosteroid injection, platelet-rich plasma injection, manual therapy, multimodal non-operative treatment, unspecified medical treatment and hand support, and surgery and corticosteroid injection with corticosteroid injection alone. Since surgery is generally used for its long-term effects, this abstract presents only long-term results for surgery versus splinting and surgery versus corticosteroid injection. 1) Surgery compared to splinting in the long term (> 3 months) Surgery probably results in a higher rate of clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.24; 3 studies, 210 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Surgery probably does not provide clinically important benefit in symptoms or hand function compared with splinting (moderate-certainty evidence). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 1) was 1.54 with splint and 0.26 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.52 better to 0.01 worse; 2 studies, 195 participants). The mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; MCID 0.7) was 1.75 with splint and 0.36 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.62 better to 0.09 better; 2 studies, 195 participants). None of the studies reported pain. Surgery may not provide better health-related quality of life compared with splinting (low-certainty evidence). The mean EQ-5D index (scale 0 to 1; higher is better; MCID 0.074) was 0.81 with splinting and 0.04 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.0 to 0.08 better; 1 study, 167 participants). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 60 of 98 participants (61%) in the surgery group and 46 of 112 participants (41%) in the splinting group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.37 to 12.12; 2 studies, 210 participants). Surgery probably reduces the risk of further surgery; 41 of 93 participants (44%) were referred to surgery in the splinting group and 0 of 83 participants (0%) repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 2 studies, 176 participants). This corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 2 (95% CI 1 to 9). 2) Surgery compared to corticosteroid injection in the long term (> 3 months) We are uncertain if clinical improvement or symptom relief differs between surgery and corticosteroid injection (very low-certainty evidence). The RR for clinical improvement was 1.23 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.06; 3 studies, 187 participants). For symptoms, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.69; 2 studies, 118 participants). This translates to 0.4 points better (95% CI from 1.3 better to 0.5 worse) on the BCTQ Symptom Severity Scale. Hand function or pain probably do not differ between surgery and corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence). For function, the SMD was -0.12 (95% CI -0.80 to 0.56; 2 studies, 191 participants) translating to 0.10 points better (95% CI 0.66 better to 0.46 worse) on the BCTQ Functional Status Scale with surgery. Pain (0 to 100 scale) was 8 points with corticosteroid injection and 6 points better (95% CI 10.45 better to 1.55 better; 1 study, 123 participants) with surgery. We found no data to estimate the difference in health-related quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects and further surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 3 of 45 participants (7%) in the surgery group and 2 of 45 participants (4%) in the corticosteroid injection group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.70; 2 studies, 90 participants). In one study, 12 of 83 participants (15%) needed surgery in the corticosteroid group, and 7 of 80 participants (9%) needed repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; 1 study, 163 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the efficacy of surgery in people with CTS is unclear. It is also unclear if the results can be applied to people who are not satisfied after trying various non-surgical options. Future studies should preferably blind participants from treatment allocation and randomise people who are dissatisfied after being treated non-surgically. The decision for a patient to opt for surgery should balance the small benefits and potential risks of surgery. Patients with severe symptoms, a high preference for clinical improvement and reluctance to adhere to non-surgical options, and who do not consider potential surgical risks and morbidity a burden, may choose surgery. On the other hand, those who have tolerable symptoms, who have not tried non-surgical options and who want to avoid surgery-related morbidity can start with non-surgical options and have surgery only if necessary. We are uncertain if the risk of adverse effects differs between surgery and non-surgical treatments. The severity of adverse effects may also be different.

Effect of platelet-rich plasma versus steroid injection in plantar fasciitis: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis (PF) is a common orthopaedic problem, with heel pain worsening the quality of life. Although steroid injection is often used if the conservative treatment fails, Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) injection is gaining popularity due to its safety and long-lasting effect. However, the effect of PRP versus steroid injection in PF has not been studied yet in Nepal. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of PRP compared with steroid injection in the treatment of PF.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, hospital-based, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of PRP injection with steroid injection in plantar fasciitis between August 2020 and March 2022. A total of 90 randomly selected participants aged 18 to 60 years suffering from plantar fasciitis with failed conservative treatment were intervened. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scoring system were used to evaluate functional mobility and pain before and after the intervention for three and six months, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using a Student's two-sample t-test. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The PRP injection showed a better outcome than the steroid injection in six months follow-up. The mean (± SD) VAS score was significantly decreased in the PRP group (1.97 + 1.13) than in the steroid group (2.71 ± 0.94) with the group difference of -0.73 (95% CI: -1.18 to -0.28) at six months. Similarly, there was a significant increase in the AOFAS scores in the PRP group (86.04 ± 7.45) compared to the steroid group (81.23 ± 9.60) at six months of follow-up with a group difference of 4.80 (95% CI: 1.15 to 8.45). There was also a significant reduction of plantar fascia thickness in the PRP group compared to that of the steroid group (3.53 ± 0.81 versus 4.58 ± 1.02) at six months of follow-up with the group difference of -1.04 (95% CI: -1.44 to -0.65).

CONCLUSION

The PRP injection showed better outcomes than steroid injection in plantar fasciitis treatment over the course of six months. Further research with a larger population and longer follow-up than six months is needed to generalize the findings and their long-term efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04985396. First registered on 02 August 2021. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04985396 ).

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.