Efficacy of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis

Effect of platelet-rich plasma injections versus placebo on pain and quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial

Objectives

This study aims to compare the efficacy of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections over a saline placebo in terms of reduction of pain and impact on quality of life among patients with hip osteoarthritis.

Patients and methods

A total of 60 patients (29 males, 31 females, mean age: 57.9±7.3 years; range, 47 to 69 years) with known hip osteoarthritis of Kellgren-Lawrance (KL) Grades 2/3 were randomized into placebo (n=30) and PRP groups (n=30) between June 2014 and June 2015. Both groups received intra-articular injections into the hip joint under ultrasound guidance for three consecutive weeks. The patients were followed for six months, and pain reduction was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, and Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36).

Results

Intra-articular PRP treatment showed no advantage over a saline placebo in terms of VAS scores during activity. Both groups showed a significant improvement in VAS activity scores at one and six months. The placebo group showed improvements in VAS resting scores, whereas the PRP group did not. Both groups showed no improvement in WOMAC-total scores. Both groups showed no significant improvement across most SF-36 domains with the exception of improved physical role functioning at one month and general health at one and six months in the placebo group.

Conclusion

Intra-articular injections of PRP show no significant difference compared to a saline placebo over a period of six months on pain, function, and quality of life scores in patients with hip osteoarthritis.

Clinical efficacy of multiple intra-articular injection for hip osteoarthritis

Aims

Intra-articular (IA) injection may be used when treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Common injections include steroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), local anaesthetic, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Network meta-analysis allows for comparisons between two or more treatment groups and uses direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of various IA injections used in the management of hip OA with a follow-up of up to six months.

Methods

This systematic review and network meta-analysis used a Bayesian random-effects model to evaluate the direct and indirect comparisons among all treatment options. PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate the efficacy of HA, PRP, local anaesthetic, steroid, steroid+anaesthetic, HA+PRP, and physiological saline injection as a placebo, for patients with hip OA were included.

Results

In this meta-analysis of 16 RCTs with a total of 1,735 participants, steroid injection was found to be significantly more effective than placebo injection on reported pain at three months, but no significant difference was observed at six months. Furthermore, steroid injection was considerably more effective than placebo injection for functional outcomes at three months, while the combination of HA+PRP injection was substantially more effective at six months.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that steroid injection is more effective than saline injection for the treatment of hip joint pain, and restoration of functional outcomes.

Viscosupplementation Is Effective for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis in the Hip: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of intra-articular viscosupplementation as a therapeutic intervention for hip osteoarthritis (OA), as well as to assess the duration of efficacy, effect of dose, composition and number of injections of the viscosupplement, and the incidence of adverse effects.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using the literature search from the following databases: Embase, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects subgroup analysis were carried out, but due to the high heterogeneity, low level of evidence, and high risk of bias of the included studies after analyzing the data, weighted means and pooled estimates have not been provided. Instead, we have provided a subjective synthesis of the results.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analysis from an initial search of 3,265 studies, with data from a total of 3,350 patients. The level of available evidence was low with an overall high risk of bias. Nearly all studies showed a reduction in mean pain at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up, as well as at the end point, and an improvement in mean patient-reported function was also seen at these time points. However, heterogeneity was extremely high at all time points and remained despite attempts at removing outliers. Subgroup analyses looking at the effects of dose, volume, composition of viscosupplement, and number of injections were carried out, but substantial heterogeneity still remained. There were no lasting adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Weak evidence suggests that viscosupplementation improves patient-reported pain and function at end point compared to baseline, regardless of dose, volume, composition, and number of injections. However, due to the high heterogeneity, low level of evidence, and high risk of bias in the current available literature, the strength of our conclusions is limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level I to IV studies.

Ultrasound-Guided Hip Injections with High Density Hyaluronic Acid: Outcome at One Year Follow Up

Background: The ultrasound-guided viscosupplementation of the hip joint with hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered a standard procedure among the conservative treatments for hip arthritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefit and the incidence of adverse events of the technique in an observational study at one year follow up. Methods: We evaluated a consecutive series of 85 patients with a diagnosis of symptomatic arthritis who underwent intra-articular ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injections. The scales used for evaluation were modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) with subscale Sport (HOSs), for pain the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). The patients were classified according to Tonnis' radiological classification of arthritis (range 0-3): 20 patients (grade 0), 32 (grade 1), 18 (grade 2), 15 (grade 3). Results: At last follow up, all the scales increased: mHHS from 59.35 to 82.1, HOS from 69.45 to 78.53, HOss from 47.4 to 58.11, VAS from 6.09 to 3.97, WOMAC from 33.2 to 31.5 (p < 0.05 for all the parameters); the results were elaborated with GraphPad Prism v5.0 (Prism Software La Jolla, CA, USA) using Wilcoxon's test. A total of 13 patients out of 85 needed arthroplasty, all classified as Tonnis grade 3. No serious adverse events were noted due to the procedure. Conclusions: Based on our findings, indication for the use of hyaluronic acid is limited to patients with mild to moderate arthritis. Patients in advanced arthritis refusing replacement surgery and asking for this treatment should be informed about the poor results of the technique even in the short term.

Steady state plasma and tissue distribution of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid after oral administration in mice

The oral administration is probably the most used and largely applicable method, even if absorption across the intestinal epithelium is a limiting factor that can invalidate the achievement of a therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the steady state bioavailability of very low molecular weight hyaluronic acid (vLMW-HA) and its distribution in different districts of mice. Adult female C57BL6/J mice (n = 26) were divided in three groups and orally treated for 7 days with: saline solution (SHAM-HA), high dose of vLMW-HA (5 kDa; 500 mg/kg/day; HD-vLMW-HA), and low dose of vLMW-HA (5 kDa; 100 mg/kg/day; LD-vLMW-HA). HA content was quantified in plasma, skin, bladder, gut, rectum, vagina, and eyes with ELISA assay at the end of treatment. HA level significantly increased after treatment with HD-vLMW-HA in all analyzed tissues and plasma. Therefore, vLMW-HA easy absorption and distribution after the oral intake opens new possibilities for future biomedical applications.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells Cultured in a 3D Microgel Environment Containing Platelet-Rich Plasma Significantly Modify Their Chondrogenesis-Related miRNA Expression

The aim of this work is to study the effect of platelet factors on the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to hyaline cartilage chondrocytes in a three-dimensional environment. MSCs were cultured in a microgel environment with a chondrogenic medium. The microgel consisted of microspheres that combine gelatin and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). The gelatin/PRP microdroplets were produced by emulsion. The gelatin containing the microdroplets was enzymatically gelled, retaining PRP and, just before seeding the cells, platelets were activated by adding calcium chloride so that platelet growth factors were released into the culture media but not before. Platelet activation was analyzed before activation to rule out the possibility that the gelatin cross-linking process itself activated the platelets. The gene expression of characteristic chondrogenic markers and miRNA expression were analyzed in cells cultured in a differentiation medium and significant differences were found between gelation/PRP microgels and those containing only pure gelatin. In summary, the gelatin microspheres effectively encapsulated platelets that secreted and released factors that significantly contributed to cellular chondrogenic differentiation. At the same time, the microgel constituted a 3D medium that provided the cells with adherent surfaces and the possibility of three-dimensional cell-cell contact.

Management of chondral and osteochondral lesions of the hip : A comprehensive review

Chondral and osteochondral lesions encompass several acute or chronic defects of the articular cartilage and/or subchondral bone. These lesions can result from several different diseases and injuries, including osteochondritis dissecans, osteochondral defects, osteochondral fractures, subchondral bone osteonecrosis, and insufficiency fractures. As the cartilage has a low capacity for regeneration and self-repair, these lesions can progress to osteoarthritis. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the subject matter that it covers. PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were accessed using the following keywords: "chondral lesions/defects of the femoral head", "chondral/cartilage lesions/defects of the acetabulum", "chondral/cartilage lesions/defects of the hip", "osteochondral lesions of the femoral head", "osteochondral lesions of the acetabulum", "osteochondral lesions of the hip", "osteochondritis dissecans," "early osteoarthritis of the hip," and "early stage avascular necrosis". Hip osteochondral injuries can cause significant damage to the articular surface and diminish the quality of life. It can be difficult to treat such injuries, especially in patients who are young and active. Several methods are used to treat chondral and osteochondral injuries of the hip, such as mesenchymal stem cells and cell-based treatment, surgical repair, and microfractures. Realignment of bony anatomy may also be necessary for optimal outcomes. Despite several treatments being successful, there is a lack of head-to-head comparisons and large sample size studies in the current literature. Additional research will be required to provide appropriate clinical recommendations for treating chondral/osteochondral injuries of the hip joint.

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

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

Non-operative Treatment Options for Osteoarthritis in the Hip

With the increased disability associated with osteoarthritis (OA) progression, and the significant socioeconomic burden of joint replacement surgeries, there is a need for more reliable conservative treatments for patients presenting with hip OA. Most studies of OA treatments involve the knee. We conducted a literature search and reviewed non-operative hip OA treatment recommendations by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, as well as Cochrane Reviews. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injections are the most supported and recommended options for hip OA; other medications with potential benefits for short-term pain relief include acetaminophen and tramadol. Most societies recommend against the use of glucosamine, typical opioids, and viscosupplementation injections. Platelet-rich plasma has potential benefits, but evidence of its effectiveness is incomplete. Further research is needed to better inform and guide clinicians who create treatment plans for patients with symptomatic hip OA.

Comparing Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma With Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hip osteoarthritis (HOA), a prevalent condition among those aged 55 years and above, is a significant cause of joint pain and functional impairment and it contributes to the overall burden of chronic pain experienced by the elderly population. While platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections have emerged as innovative therapeutic approaches for managing osteoarthritis, their effectiveness in HOA remains a subject of contention. Therefore, the objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of PRP versus HA in terms of pain relief and functional outcomes for the management of HOA. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases from 2013 to 2023 to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of seven trials (478 participants) were included. The selected studies underwent quality assessment using the updated Cochrane risk of bias tool. The pain and functional outcomes were examined using measures of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, visual analog scale (VAS), and Harris hip score (HHS). In the meta-analysis, standard mean differences (SMDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate overall effect magnitudes for continuous outcomes were extracted. Statistical significance was determined using p-values below 0.05. At six months, the PRP group experienced a significantly lower standard mean WOMAC pain score (SMD = -0.38, CI = -0.64 - 0.13; p = 0.03). No significant differences in WOMAC pain scores were noted at one to two months (SMD = 0.09, CI = -0.24, 0.43; p = 0.59), and at 12 months (SMD = -0.85, CI = -1.81, 0.12; p = 0.09). Similarly, for VAS, patients on PRP showed a slight improvement in their VAS scores at six months (SMD = -0.50, CI = -0.89, -0.12; p < 0.01). However, no significant differences in VAS between the PRP groups and the HA groups were observed at one to two months (SMD = -0.22, CI = -0.49, 0.04; p = 0.10) and at 12 months (SMD = -0.22, CI: -0.63, 0.19; p = 0.29). In terms of hip dysfunction, there was no statistically significant standard mean difference in HHS between the PRP and HA groups at six months (SMD = 0.02, CI = -0.40, 0.44; p = 0.93), and at 12 months (SMD = -0.31, CI = -0.32, 0.22; p = 0.73). This review and meta-analysis provide insights into emerging treatments for HOA, especially considering that PRP shows potential benefits and safety for patients with HOA during mid-term follow-up in a 12-month period. Nevertheless, it is necessary to conduct research that includes high-quality designs and larger sample sizes to validate the comparative efficacy of these treatments.

The Use of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Therapeutic Intervention for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a cohort of patients in whom hip preservation surgery is not indicated, because they have developed signs of early osteoarthritis (OA), and nor can they have a hip replacement, as they are too early in the disease process. Management of this cohort of patients is not standardised and both pharmacological and nonpharmacological measures are utilised to reduce pain. Interventions available for early OA include intra-articular injections of steroids, viscosupplementation and more recently platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, the use of PRP in hip OA has not yet been studied systematically.

PURPOSE

To assess intra-articular PRP as a therapeutic intervention for hip OA, including the duration of efficacy, influence of dose and composition of PRP, and the incidence of adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We performed literature searches on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, COCHRANE, and SCOPUS databases, and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the methodological index for non-randomized studies instrument, with an additional assessment for randomized controlled trials with the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. This is the first study to concisely collate the available data on the use of PRP in hip OA.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the analysis, with data from a total of 331 patients. PRP significantly reduced pain compared with the baseline at multiple time points, with the greatest effect at the 1- to 2-month follow-up, but PRP significantly improved function only at the 1- to 2-month follow-up. A significantly larger reduction in pain was achieved with a single injection of PRP compared with multiple injections, a total injected dose of PRP <15 mL compared with ≥15 mL, and use of a leukocyte-poor PRP preparation compared with leukocyte-rich PRP. There were no lasting adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Low- and moderate-quality evidence suggests that PRP reduces pain and improves function at the end-point follow-up of studies compared with the baseline. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that a larger reduction in pain is achieved with a single injection of PRP compared with multiple injections, and low-quality evidence attributes a larger reduction of pain with a total injected dose of PRP <15 mL compared with ≥15 mL and using leukocyte-poor PRP compared with leukocyte-rich PRP.

Inflammaging and Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent disease particularly in subjects over 65 years of age worldwide. While in the past it was considered a mere consequence of cartilage degradation leading to anatomical and functional joint impairment, in recent decades, there has been a more dynamic view with the synovium, the cartilage, and the subchondral bone producing inflammatory mediators which ultimately lead to cartilage damage. Inflammaging is defined as a chronic, sterile, low-grade inflammation state driven by endogenous signals in the absence of infections, occurring with aging. This chronic status is linked to the production of reactive oxygen species and molecules involved in the development of age-related disease such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. Inflammaging contributes to osteoarthritis development where both the innate and the adaptive immune response are involved. Elevated systemic and local inflammatory cytokines and senescent molecules promote cartilage degradation, and antigens derived from damaged joints further trigger inflammation through inflammasome activation. B and T lymphocyte populations also change with inflammaging and OA, with reduced regulatory functions, thus implicating self-reactivity as an additional mechanism of joint damage. The discovery of the underlying pathogenic pathways may help to identify potential therapeutic targets for the management or the prevention of osteoarthritis. We will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current literature on the role of inflammaging in osteoarthritis and discuss the emerging therapeutic strategies.

Comparisons of Cytokines, Growth Factors and Clinical Efficacy between Platelet-Rich Plasma and Autologous Conditioned Serum for Knee Osteoarthritis Management

This study aimed to directly compare the contents and the clinical efficacy of the two autologous blood-derived products, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous conditioned serum (ACS) for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. The contents of standard-prepared PRP and ACS prepared at 37 °C for 1 h, 3 h, 6 h, and 24 h from healthy volunteers were compared. The clinical efficacy of pain relief in patients with Stage III knee OA was evaluated by a patient-reported visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating. PDGF-BB levels in ACS 1 h were significantly higher than those in PRP, and the levels in ACS preparations remained stable. IGF-1 level of ACS 24 h showed a significant increase compared to those of other ACS preparations and PRP. ACS 3 h showed a turning of IL-1Ra level and revealed a time-dependent increase up to 24 h. ACS 6 h showed a turning increase in TNF-α levels. ACS 3 h was chosen for clinical comparison with PRP. The reduction in pain VAS in the ACS group was significantly more compared to those of the PRP group (p = 0.028). However, PRP showed significant earlier improvement (p < 0.001). Conclusion: ACS contained higher levels of PDGF-BB and IL-1Ra and provided better improvement in pain relief compared to PRP.

Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint injection of platelet-rich plasma and steroid in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A prospective study

Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PCP) and steroid along with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) due to facet joint arthropathy. Overview of literature: Facet joint pathology is an important cause of LBP—15–30% of all LBP cases. Lumbar intra-articular PRP is a relatively new method in the treatment of LBP. PRP stimulates the cells involved in regeneration. Hence, it seems a suitable option for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. Methods: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of facet joint injections in LBP secondary to facet joint arthropathy. Chronic LBP for ≥3 months (visual analogue scale (VAS) > 4), failed conservative treatment, no neurological deficit, unilateral facet joint pain, focal tenderness with hyperextension pain, and relief by diagnostic medial branch block were included. Patients were randomly allocated to Group S: Steroid (Triamcinolone) + RFA or Group P: PRP + RFA or Group R: 0.9% saline + RFA as control. Demographic, clinico-radiological, and outcome parameters were recorded till 6 months. Data were analyzed using SPSS and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We studied 45 patients (n = 15 in each group) in the final analysis. Mean age was 45.7 ± 13.6 years and 60% were females in all groups. VAS decreased to 1.6 ± 0.8 (Group S) and 3.2 ± 0.8 (Group P) on day 1 ( p < 0.05). At 3 and 6 months, VAS reduced more in Group P (0.47 ± 0.5; 0.07 ± 0.2) versus Group S (2.53 ± 0.5; 3.07 ± 0.2) ( p < 0.001). Mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at baseline was 72.8 ± 7.6 (all groups). At 1 month, Group S (17.2 ± 3.2) showed better improvement than Group P (23.2 ± 3.1) ( p < 0.05). At 6 months, Group P (8.9 ± 1.2) had more decrease in ODI than Group S (29.0 ± 2.1) ( p < 0.001). NSAIDs usage and Patient Satisfaction Score (PSS) were significantly better at 6 months in Group P than Group S ( p < 0.01; p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: Both PRP and corticosteroid injections were determined to be effective and safe for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome after 6 months of follow-up. However, autologous PRP may be a superior treatment option for longer efficacy.

Orthobiologic Injections for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

The use of orthobiologics is gaining increasing interest as a minimally invasive treatment for hip osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence about the safety and efficacy of these products. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. The study quality was assessed using the RoB 2.0 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS) for all studies. A total of 20 clinical studies (735 patients) was identified, 12 on PRP injections and eight on cell-based therapies (five from bone marrow, two from adipose tissue, and one from amniotic fluid). The publication trend increased over time, with over 50% of articles published from 2019. The literature analysis showed only six RCTs, all on PRP injections. The mCMS showed an overall fair methodology (mean score 59.4). While the number of studies and their methodology are still limited, the available evidence suggests safety and overall promising results, with the treatment success being inversely proportional to the severity of OA. Further high-level controlled trials are needed before drawing more definitive conclusions on the real potential of orthobiologics for the injective treatment of patients affected by hip OA.

Comparison between the effects of ultrasound guided intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), high molecular weight hyaluronic acid, and their combination in hip osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Intra articular (IA) injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are of the new methods in the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of IA injections of PRP, HA and their combination in patients with hip OA. HA and PRP are two IA interventions that can be used in OA in the preoperative stages. Due to the different mechanisms of action, these two are proposed to have a synergistic effect by combining.

Methods

This is a randomized clinical trial with three parallel groups. In this study, patients with grade 2 and 3 hip OA were included, and were randomly divided into three injection groups: PRP, HA and PRP + HA. In either group, two injections with 2 weeks’ interval were performed into the hip joint under ultrasound guidance. Patients were assessed before the intervention, 2 months and 6 months after the second injection, using the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne questionnaires.

Results

One hundred five patients were enrolled randomly in HA, PRP and PRP + HA groups. All three groups showed significant improvement in WOMAC, VAS, and Lequesne at 2 months and 6 months compared with baseline. Comparison of the 3 groups demonstrated significant differences regarding WOMAC and Lequesne total scores and the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale of Lequesne (P = 0.041, 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), in which the observed improvement at 6th month was significantly higher in the PRP + HA and PRP groups compared to the HA group.

Conclusion

Although all 3 interventions were associated with improvement of pain and function in patients with hip OA, the therapeutic effects of PRP and PRP + HA injections lasted longer (6 months), and the effects of these two interventions on patients’ performance, disability, and ADL were superior to HA in the long run. Moreover, the addition of HA to PRP was not associated with a significant increase in the therapeutic results.

Trial registration

The study was registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) website http://www.irct.ir/, a WHO Primary Register setup, with the registration number of IRCT20130523013442N30 on 29/11/2019.

Umbilical Cord PRP vs. Autologous PRP for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis

Umbilical cord platelet-rich plasma (C-PRP) has more growth factors and anti-inflammatory molecules compared with autologous PRP (A-PRP) derived from peripheral blood. The aim of this study was to compare intra-articular C-PRP or A-PRP injections in terms of safety and clinical efficacy for the treatment of patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This study investigated the results of 100 patients with hip OA treated with three weekly ultrasound-guided injections of either C-PRP or A-PRP. Clinical evaluations were performed before the treatment and after two, six, and twelve months with the HHS, WOMAC, and VAS scores. No major adverse events were recorded. Overall, the improvement was limited with both treatments. Significant improvements in VAS (p = 0.031) and HHS (p = 0.011) were documented at two months for C-PRP. Patients with a low OA grade (Tonnis 1-2) showed a significantly higher HHS improvement with C-PRP than A-PRP at twelve months (p = 0.049). C-PRP injections are safe but offered only a short-term clinical improvement. The comparative analysis did not demonstrate benefits compared with A-PRP in the overall population, but the results are influenced by OA severity, with C-PRP showing more benefits when advanced OA cases were excluded. Further studies are needed to confirm the most suitable indications and potential of this biological injective approach.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Hip Osteoarthritis Yields Similarly Beneficial Short-Term Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level I and II Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of PRP and HA injections for hip OA. The search phrase used was hip, osteoarthritis, platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, randomized. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Subanalyses were performed for any outcome score in which ≥3 studies reported results.

RESULTS

Six studies (5 level I, 1 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 211 patients undergoing intra-articular injection with PRP (mean age 60.0 years, mean follow-up 12.2 months) and 197 patients with HA (mean age 62.3 years, mean follow-up 11.9 months). No significant differences were found in the weighted improvement of any outcome score (WOMAC, VAS, or HHS) from preinjection to postinjection between groups. When excluding a study with the highest risk of bias to eliminate heterogeneity, pooled subanalysis demonstrated no significant differences in WOMAC subscores between PRP and HA groups. Similarly, in a pooled subanalysis that isolated patients treated with leukocyte-poor PRP, no significant differences in WOMAC subscores were found between PRP and HA groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for hip OA with either PRP or HA injections can expect to experience similarly beneficial short-term clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, systematic review of level I and II studies.

Intra-articular Injectates: What to Use and Why

Intra-articular injections are a nonsurgical treatment modality that can be used to manage osteoarthritis, naturally occurring or surgically induced acute synovitis, and intra-articular ligamentous or tendon injury. This option may be assistive for patients in which other conservative modalities are ineffective, or in conjunction with other forms of treatment. It may also be used as the primary treatment. Injectates labeled for use in companion animal joints include corticosteroids and viscosupplements. Additional injectates, that are not specifically approved for use in companion animals are but are reported in the literature, include orthobiologics and a radioisotope of Tin-117m.

Ultrasound-guided injection with hyaluronic acid in hip osteoarthritis: efficacy and safety in a real-life setting

BACKGROUND

For knee OA, EULAR has included hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection in the 2003 recommendations, making the intra-articular injection a sound therapeutic option. The ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections (USGIAI) have been demonstrated to be more efficient and safe in comparison to the blind procedure. Our objectives were to evaluate the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of USGIAI of HA in moderate hip OA and patients' additional NSAIDs/pain killer intake.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with hip OA (KLG II/III), that failed standard of care therapy, received 3 consecutive HA-USGIAI (case group) while other patients (KLG II/III) treated according to current guidelines were chosen as a control group. Demographic data, comorbidities and medication intake were recorded. VAS pain scale and WOMAC score were performed at baseline and at 3 months. In the case group, they were additionally scored at 6 months. At baseline and at 6 months, hip X-ray assessment was also made. Ultrasound evaluation was made at each visit.

RESULTS

In the case group, 15 patients were enrolled and 28 hip joints were injected. The control group consisted of 17 hip OA patients. In the case group, pain evaluated by VAS score and WOMAC score were significantly and progressively decreased (p < 0.0001) from baseline up to 3 and 6 months, respectively. Indeed, the case group showed a significantly lower NSAIDs/pain killer median intake at 3 months from baseline (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits. Key Points • US hip evaluation before interventional maneuvers may identify capsular distension suggestive for concomitant septic involvement, microcrystal arthropathy or incipient hip osteonecrosis. • USGIAI may be fundamental to achieve an efficacious and safe injection. • HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation does not result in more favourable outcomes in arthroscopic meniscal repair: a meta-analysis

Background

The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP.

Methods

The present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase were accessed in August 2021. All the clinical trials which compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP were included.

Results

Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were included: 38% (318 of 837 patients) were women; the mean age of the patients was 35.6 (range, 20.8–64.3) years; the mean follow-up was 26.2 (range, 6–54) months. Similarity was found in analogue scale (VAS) (P = 0.5) and Lysholm (P = 0.9), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (P = 0.9). Similarity was found in the rate of failure (P = 0.4) and rate of revision (P = 0.07).

Conclusion

The current published scientific evidence does not support PRP augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair.

A Single Injection of Amniotic Suspension Allograft Is Safe and Effective for Treatment of Mild to Moderate Hip Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to examine the effects of a commercially available amniotic suspension allograft (ASA) (ReNu, Organogenesis, Canton, MA) in a patient population with moderate osteoarthritis of the hip.

METHODS

Ten patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, defined as Tonnis grade 1 or 2 on radiographic examination, were prospectively enrolled. Each patient received a single image-guided injection of ASA into the hip joint. Patient-reported outcomes measures, including the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, Modified Harris Hip Score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores were recorded at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months postinjection. A linear regression model was performed to detect differences in outcome scores from baseline.

RESULTS

Nine patients had complete 12-month data available for analysis. One patient failed treatment and underwent arthroplasty at 2 months postinjection. The cohort includes 5 males and 4 females, aged 47-67. International Hip Outcome Tool scores demonstrated a significant improvement between baseline and 12 months (P = .02). Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores demonstrated a significant difference between baseline and 6 months (P < .01), as well as between baseline and 12 months (P < .01). Modified Harris Hip Scores demonstrated a significant difference between baseline and 6 months (P = .02) and between baseline and 12 months (P = .01). There were no major adverse events in the course of the study period.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates promising results for relief of pain and improvement in patient-reported outcomes with intra-articular ASA in patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the hip for up to one year, although the exact mechanism of action remains unknown. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, case series.

Nonoperative and Operative Bone and Cartilage Regeneration and Orthopaedic Biologics of the Hip: An Orthoregeneration Network (ON) Foundation Hip Review

Orthoregeneration is defined as a solution for orthopaedic conditions that harnesses the benefits of biology to improve healing, reduce pain, improve function, and, optimally, provide an environment for tissue regeneration. Options include drugs, surgical intervention, scaffolds, biologics as a product of cells, and physical and electromagnetic stimuli. The goal of regenerative medicine is to enhance the healing of tissue after musculoskeletal injuries as both isolated treatment and adjunct to surgical management, using novel therapies to improve recovery and outcomes. Various orthopaedic biologics (orthobiologics) have been investigated for the treatment of pathology involving the hip, including osteonecrosis (aseptic necrosis) involving bone marrow, bone, and cartilage, and chondral injuries involving articular cartilage, synovium, and bone marrow. Promising and established treatment modalities for osteonecrosis include nonweightbearing; pharmacological treatments including low molecular-weight heparin, prostacyclin, statins, bisphosphonates, and denosumab, a receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand inhibitor; extracorporeal shock wave therapy; pulsed electromagnetic fields; core decompression surgery; cellular therapies including bone marrow aspirate comprising mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs aka mesenchymal stem cells) and bone marrow autologous concentrate, with or without expanded or cultured cells, and possible addition of bone morphogenetic protein-2, vascular endothelial growth factor, and basic fibroblast growth factor; and arterial perfusion of MSCs that may be combined with addition of carriers or scaffolds including autologous MSCs cultured with beta-tricalcium phosphate ceramics associated with a free vascularized fibula. Promising and established treatment modalities for chondral lesions include autologous platelet-rich plasma; hyaluronic acid; MSCs (in expanded or nonexpanded form) derived from bone marrow or other sources such as fat, placenta, umbilical cord blood, synovial membrane, and cartilage; microfracture or microfracture augmented with membrane containing MSCs, collagen, HA, or synthetic polymer; mosaicplasty; 1-stage autologous cartilage translation (ACT) or 2-stage ACT using 3-dimensional spheroids; and autologous cartilage grafting; chondral flap repair, or flap fixation with fibrin glue. Hip pain is catastrophic in young patients, and promising therapies offer an alternative to premature arthroplasty. This may address both physical and psychological components of pain; the goal is to avoid or postpone an artificial joint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

State of art in intra-articular hip injections of different medications for osteoarthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular hip injections for osteoarthritis represent a useful instrument to reduce pain and disability in the common clinical practice. Several medications can be injected locally with different level of evidence-based efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of intra-articular injections of different medications or substances for the pain treatment and the management of disability in subjects affected by hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Two reviewers selected independently randomised controlled trials published in the last 10 years, using PubMed and Scopus databases. The risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane library assessment tool.

RESULTS

12 randomised controlled trials have been selected. We found 8 papers comparing hyaluronic acid with platelet rich plasma, with corticosteroids and with saline solution; 1 paper compares two types of hyaluronic acid with different molecular weights; 3 papers study the effects of corticosteroids alone or compared to ketorolac or saline solution.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed were heterogeneous regarding sample size, level of osteoarthritis, evaluated with Kellegren-Lawrence score, medications used and follow up timings. However, we have observed that intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma seem to decrease pain at short term and disability at long term, in patients affected by hip osteoarthritis better than hyaluronic acid. The association of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids could give better results compared to hyaluronic acid alone, while the use of intra-articular ketorolac and saline solution requires more studies.

The use of biologics to improve patient-reported outcomes in hip preservation

Despite lack of clear understanding, the use of biologic treatment methods has increased in the United States. Therapeutic methods, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and hyaluronic acid (HA) among other biologics, are commonly associated with relief of pain in a number of different orthopedic conditions. Within the past two decades, hip preservationists have investigated the roles of these biologic treatments in both non-operative and surgical management of common hip conditions. The purpose is to review the published literature surrounding the application and efficacy of biologics, most notably PRP, BMAC and HA, in the clinical management of hip conditions. The hip conditions examined in this review include hip osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and associated labral tear pathology, avascular necrosis of the femoral head and gluteal/hamstring tendinopathy. While our review of the literature suggests that there is support for the implementation of biologics to relieve pain and improve function for hip conditions. Through further research efforts, it is important to stay updated with the clinical efficacy of biologics in hip preservation.

Articular cartilage repair & joint preservation: A review of the current status of biological approach

The articular cartilage of the joint is the thin viscoelastic layer of the connective tissue. It has a unique anatomy and physiology, which makes the repair of the articular cartilage damage more difficult and challenging due to its limited healing capacity. Increasing knowledge regarding the importance of articular cartilage for joint preservation has led to increased attention on early identification of cartilage damage as well as degeneration in order to delay osteoarthritis. There are various treatment modalities ranging from preventive management, physical therapy, pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical treatments exist in current literature. However most of the studies have limited long term follow up and mainly consists of small case series and case reports. This is an up to date concise review discussing the available management options for articular cartilage damage starting to lifestyle modification to pharmacotherapy, physiotherapy, and osteobiologics till various joint preservation techniques that have been in use currently.

Safety and efficacy of a single intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis of the hip: a case series of 87 patients

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent form of joint disease and commonly affects the hip. Hip OA is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection may be of benefit but quality evidence for HA use in hip OA is lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided injection of a high molecular weight, non-animal derived, stabilised HA (NASHA) in patients with mild to moderate hip OA.

Methods

This single site study is an analysis of prospectively collected outcome data for 87 consecutive patients over a 2-year period who received a single HA (Durolane) injection for symptomatic hip OA. Inclusion criteria were male or female patients over 18-years of age with mild to moderate hip OA on x-ray. Patients with severe hip OA were excluded. The primary outcome measure was a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) questionnaire at baseline and 6-weeks with a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 10 points. All adverse events were recorded and assessed.

Results

Data from 87 patients, 49 women and 38 men with mean age of 54 (SD = 10.8) were analysed. At baseline, mean mHHS was 58.47 (SD 14.31). At the 6 week follow up, mean mHHS improved to 71.30 (SD 16.46), a difference of 12.83 (p < 0.01). This was greater than the MCID of 10. No significant adverse events were encountered. Five patients reported short-lived injection site pain.

Conclusion

A single injection of HA (NASHA) in the setting of hip joint OA was both safe and efficacious in this 87 patient cohort. Improvement in pain and function as measured with mHHS was statistically significant and reached the MCID of 10.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered on the 1st of February 2021 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with registry number ACTRN12621000098831. All research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Hyaluronan as a Prominent Biomolecule with Numerous Applications in Medicine

Hyaluronan (HA) is a natural glycosaminoglycan present in many tissues of all vertebrates. HA has various biological functions, which are dependent on its molar mass. High-molar-mass HA has anti-angiogenic, immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory properties, while low-molar-mass HA has opposite effects. HA has also antioxidative properties, however on the other hand it can be readily degraded by reactive oxygen species. For many years it has been used in treatment of osteoarthritis, cosmetics and in ophthalmology. In the last years there has been a growing interest of HA to also be applied in other fields of medicine such as skin wound healing, tissue engineering, dentistry and gene delivery. In this review we summarize information on modes of HA administration, properties and effects of HA in various fields of medicine including recent progress in the investigation of HA.

Orthobiologics in the treatment of hip disorders

Orthobiologics are biological materials that are intended for the regeneration or healing of bone, cartilage and soft tissues. In this review we discuss the use of orthobiologics for hip disorders providing an update. The orthobiologics included in this article are hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma, bone marrow, adipose tissue and expanded mesenchymal stem cells. We explain the concepts and definitions of each orthobiological product, and the literature regarding its use in the hip joint. The paucity of guidelines for the production and characterization of the biological products leads to uneven results across the literature. Each biologic therapy has indications and benefits; however, noteworthy are the characterization of the orthobiologics, the application method and outcome analysis for further improvement of each technique.

The Use of Biologics for Hip Preservation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A wide array of nonoperative modalities to treat hip pain are aimed at restoring and maintaining the structural and physiologic characteristics of the joint. The purpose of this review is to describe the current understanding of biologics in hip pathology by providing an evidence-based overview of treatment modalities available for orthopedic surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of biologics as a primary treatment or adjunct to traditional management has shown encouraging results for the treatment of hip pain. Studies have demonstrated safety with minimal complications when using platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, or stem cells to treat hip pain caused by osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, tendinopathy, or osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Several studies have been able to demonstrate meaningful clinical results that can improve treatment standards for hip pain; however, more work must be performed to better delineate the appropriate protocols, indications, and limitations of each modality. Recent advances have inspired renewed interest in biologics for patients with hip pain. We present a concise review of platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, stem cells, and matrix metalloprotease inhibitors and their applicability to hip preservation surgery.

Comparing Intra-articular Injections of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Low-Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip: A Double-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study

Background:

Hyaluronic acid (HA) and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) are 2 nonoperative treatment options that have been studied in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Purpose:

To compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of low–molecular weight (LMW) HA and LP-PRP in patients with hip OA.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

A total of 34 patients (36 hips) presenting with signs of hip OA were randomized to receive 3 blinded, weekly intra-articular injections of either LP-PRP or LMW-HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated before injections and at 6 weeks and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The primary outcome, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) or a hip resurfacing procedure, was analyzed along with secondary outcomes including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and hip range of motion.

Results:

The final analysis included 33 hips (mean Kellgren-Lawrence grade, 2.73) (LMW-HA: n = 14; LP-PRP: n = 19) in 31 patients (18 male; mean age, 53.8 years). Significantly more patients converted to THA or a hip resurfacing procedure in the LMW-HA group (7/14; 50.0%) (mean, 1.3 years after first injection) than the LP-PRP group (3/19; 15.8%) (mean, 0.73 years after first injection) (P = .035). There was no significant improvement or decline in any outcome scores within the LMW-HA group from before injections to 6 weeks or 3, 6, and 12 months. For the LP-PRP group, WOMAC overall (P = .032), joint (P = .030), and function scores (P = .025) significantly improved from before injections to 6 weeks, and WOMAC joint scores significantly improved from before injections to 6 months (P = .036). When comparing the difference between groups in internal rotation at 90° of hip flexion from before injections to 6 months, the LP-PRP group demonstrated a mean 5.0° improvement, while the LMW-HA group showed a mean 1.5° decrease (P = .028).

Conclusion:

Intra-articular hip injections of LP-PRP in patients with hip OA resulted in an improvement in WOMAC scores and hip internal rotation at 6 months and delayed the need for THA or a hip resurfacing procedure compared with treatment with LMW-HA. A longer follow-up is necessary to further compare the effects of LP-PRP and LMW-HA injections in patients with hip OA.

Registration:

NCT01920152 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

The efficacy of intra-articular HYADD4-G injection in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: results at one year follow up

Objective

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition that has been increasingly recognized as a source of hip pain and a possible risk factor to early development of hip osteoarthritis (OA). To our knowledge, the use of HA in the treatment of femoroacetabular FAI has been investigated only by two studies, both using a high molecular weight HA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two weekly injections of an hexadecylamide derivative of HA (HYADD4-G, HYMOVIS, Fidia Farmaceutici) in FAI.

Methods

All patients received two weekly intra-articular injections of Hymovis at baseline and after 7 days. Clinical and functional assessments were performed at baseline and was repeated after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Functional measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Harris Hip score (HHS), Lequesne Index (LI), Tegner activity level scale (TALS) and monthly consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

Results

Twenty-one hips (19 patients, 2 bilateral cases) were treated. The variables VAS, HHS as well as Lequesne improved significantly from T0 to T4 (at 12 months) with the best improvement between T0 and T1. At the same time, a reduction in NSAIDs monthly intake was registered. On the other hand, a significant improvement in Tegner scale was not observed. No adverse events were registered.

Conclusion

This study states that one cycle of HYADD4-G could be a safe and effective treatment in patients with FAI, showing significative results in term of pain control as well as hip functionality and quality of life up to 1 year.

Preparation Methods and Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-articular Hip Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background:

Despite its increasing use in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, questions remain regarding the preparation methods of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its clinical applications for intra-articular hip disorders, including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral pathology, and osteoarthritis (OA).

Purpose:

To systematically review and assess the preparation methods and clinical outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic review in accordance with the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in September 2019. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Embase were queried for studies regarding the use of PRP to treat intra-articular hip disorders. Qualifying articles were English-language RCTs describing the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders, either as standalone treatment or surgical augmentation. Two authors independently assessed article eligibility. Data pertaining to patient characteristics, indication for treatment, PRP preparation method, follow-up period, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Study results were qualitatively reported and quantitatively compared using meta-analysis when appropriate.

Results:

Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Four studies described the use of PRP for hip OA and 3 utilized PRP at arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears. Outcomes after PRP for OA demonstrated improvement in validated patient-reported outcome measures for up to 1 year; however, pooled effect sizes found no statistically significant difference between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) regarding pain visual analog scale scores at short-term (≤2 months; P = .27), midterm (4-6 months; P = .85), or long-term (1 year; P = .42) follow-up. When injected at arthroscopy, 1 study reported improved outcomes, 1 reported no difference in outcomes, and 1 reported worse outcomes compared with controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between PRP and control cohorts at a minimum 1-year follow-up. There were considerable deficiencies and heterogeneity in the reporting of PRP preparation methods for both indications.

Conclusion:

Treatment of OA with PRP demonstrated reductions in pain and improved patient-reported outcomes for up to 1 year. However, there was no statistically significant difference between PRP and HA in pain reduction. Likewise, for FAIS and labral surgery there was no statistically significant difference in mHHS outcomes between patients treated with PRP and controls. Given the limited number of studies and variability in PRP preparations, additional high-quality randomized trials are warranted.

Biologics

Biologics are a growing field that has shown immense promise for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions both in orthopedic sports medicine and interventional pain management. These procedures utilize injection of supraphysiologic levels of platelets and growth factors to invoke the body's own inflammatory cascade to augment the healing of many bony and soft tissue conditions. While many patients improve with conservative care, there is a need to address the gap between those that improve with rehabilitation alone and those who ultimately require operative management. Orthobiologic procedures have the potential to fill this void. The purpose of this review is to summarize the basic science, evidence for use, and post-injection rehabilitation concepts of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) as they pertain to joints, tendons, ligaments, and the spine.

Platelet-rich plasma injections for hip osteoarthritis: a review of the evidence

Osteoarthritis is a significant cause of chronic pain in the elderly population with hip osteoarthritis as one of the main causes of functional disability and joint pain in adults older than 55 years. Recently, platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections have been introduced for treatment of osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review is to assess its effectiveness in the management of hip osteoarthritis. We performed a search of the literature for published prospective studies that assessed the effectiveness of PRP injections in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. Primary outcome measures were WOMAC and VAS scores. Five trials were identified with 185 patients undergoing treatment with ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of PRP, compared with patients treated with hyaluronic acid alone (n = 148) or hyaluronic acid combined with PRP (n = 31) in one study. PRP was shown to improve patient outcome scores at follow-up at 6 and 12 months; however, there was no significant difference seen between patients treated with PRP or hyaluronic acid alone. Following this systematic review, we cannot currently recommend the use of intra-articular injections of PRP for the treatment of hip OA. Given that intra-articular steroid injections are the only such injection recommended by international guidelines for the treatment of hip OA, further studies comparing PRP to steroid would be of benefit to determine the value of PRP injections in hip OA.

Current hip cartilage regeneration/repair modalities: a scoping review of biologics and surgery

PURPOSE

The rapidly growing and emerging nature of biologics have made indications for regenerative and reparative hip therapies ever changing, with at times only early-stage evidence for their use. The purpose of this study was to review and summarize the currently available data on the management of hip cartilage injuries and osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A scoping review of the available scientific literature for hip biologics was performed, with available evidence for hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet rich plasma (PRP), stem/stromal cells, microfracture, mosaicplasty, osteochondral allograft, and cell-based therapies investigated.

RESULTS

To date, there exist better guidelines and further consensus concerning knee joint biologic treatments than the hip due to a greater number of studies as well as the more recent emergence of hip preservation approaches. However, increasing evidence is available for the selective implementation of biologics on an individualized basis with attention to lesion size and location.

CONCLUSION

Orthopedic surgeons are at an exciting crossroads in medicine, where hip biologic therapies are evolving and increasingly available. Timetested interventions such as arthroplasty have shown good results and still have a major role to play but newer, regenerative approaches have the potential to effectively delay or reduce the requirement for such invasive procedures.

Viscosupplementation for hip osteoarthritis: Does systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures support use?

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis of the hip is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. There is lack of agreement among providers and governing agencies regarding the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to determine how HA administration impacts 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 2) rates of conversion to THA.

METHODS

The PubMed, EBSCO host, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried for all studies published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 that reported on outcomes following HA administration for treatment of hip OA. The following keywords were implemented with AND and OR Boolean operators: "hip"; "osteoarthritis"; "arthritis"; "viscosupplementation"; "hyaluronic acid." Our final analysis included 39 studies and reported on a total of 5,864 patients receiving injections of HA.

RESULTS

All studies reporting on visual analog scale (VAS), patient global assessment, and total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores demonstrated improvements following HA administration. For the Lequesne Index (LI), WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) values, a majority of studies reported that HA would prove beneficial, with one analysis suggesting a lack of improvement. There was inconsistent evidence across studies regarding the effectiveness of HA compared to other intra-articular injections. The formulation of the administered viscosupplementation did not appear to influence outcomes. Furthermore, rates of conversion to THA were relatively low when evaluating 1- to 4-year follow-up intervals.

DISCUSSION

Non-comparative studies consistently demonstrated that HA can achieve satisfactory pain reduction and functional improvement. However, there was not enough evidence in the current literature regarding whether HA is superior to placebo or other types of intra-articular injections. Future studies should continue to compare HA to other treatment modalities in randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes.

Intra-articular saline injection is as effective as corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

Intra-articular (IA) injections represent a commonly used modality in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Commonly used injections include corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A network meta-analysis allows for comparison among more than two treatment arms and uses both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the various IA injectable treatments in treating hip OA at up to 6 months of follow-up.

Design

This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects model was performed to assess the direct and indirect comparisons of all treatment options.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to October 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selected studies

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CCS, HA, PRP and placebo in the form of IA saline injection for patients with hip OA.

Results

Eleven randomised controlled trials comprising 1353 patients were included. For pain outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. For functional outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. Regarding change from baseline at 2–4 months and 6 months, pooled data demonstrated that all interventions (including placebo), with the exception of HA+PRP, led to a clinically important improvement in both pain, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that IA hip saline injections performed as well as all other injectable options in the management of hip pain and functional outcomes.

Intraosseous infiltrations of Platelet-Rich Plasma for severe hip osteoarthritis: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Addressing the subchondral bone through intraosseous infiltrations of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) may improve the effectiveness of this technique for severe hip osteoarthritis (HOA).

METHODS

Forty patients with HOA degree 2 and 3 according to the Tönnis scale were recruited for this study. They were susceptible to a total hip arthroplasty, without response to previous treatment based on intraarticular infiltrations of PRP. Patients received a combination of intraosseous injections into the acetabulum and the femoral head, as well as intraarticular PRP infiltrations. The clinical outcome was evaluated at 2, 6 and 12 months using the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index.

RESULTS

At 2, 6 and 12 months, patients had significant pain improvement according to HOOS pain, WOMAC pain, and VAS scores. After the treatment, the percentage of patients with minimal clinically important improvement was 40% (16 over 40 patients) at 2 months, 37.5% (15 over 40) at 6 months, and 40% (16 over 40) at 12 months. Conclusion: The combination of intra-articular and intra-osseous infiltrations of PRP showed a pain reduction and improvement in hip joint functionality up to 12 months in patients with severe HOA, with no severe adverse effects.

Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in the management of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) is still controversial. Previous research supports the use of intra-articular PRP injections to promote a favorable environment for joint tissue healing and to delay the progression of OA. The purpose of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of PRP in the management of hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2019: Medline (via PubMed), SportDiscus via EBSCO, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE method was used to assess the level of evidence for the studies included in this review. Clinical trials evaluate PRP injections among adult patients diagnosed with HOA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. At least one outcome measure for pain or function must have been reported. A total of 4 trials (334 participants, 340 hips) were included, all marked as "moderate risk of bias". Pain and function were assessed throughout the studies with visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Harris Hip Score (HHS) tools. Intra-articular PRP injections were more effective at stages earlier than 3 months for both treatment groups with the exception of WOMAC score in one study. The superiority of PRP against comparative treatments was only reported in one study; longer-term evaluations from 4 to 12 months showed diverse results, with only one study reporting significantly better results for PRP. PRP may be beneficial and safe for patients with HOA at mid-term follow-up. However, its superiority over other procedures such as hyaluronic acid remains unclear. Further researches with high-quality designs and larger samples become imperative.

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).

Minimally Invasive Therapies for Osteoarthritic Hip Pain: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent cause of chronic hip pain, affecting 27% of adults aged over 45 years and 42% of adults aged over 75 years. Though OA has traditionally been described as a disorder of "wear-and-tear," recent studies have expanded on this understanding to include a possible inflammatory etiology as well, damage to articular cartilage produces debris in the joint that is phagocytosed by synovial cells which leads to inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with OA of the hip frequently have decreased quality of life due to pain and limited mobility though additional comorbidities of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, poor sleep quality, and obesity have been correlated. Initial treatment with conservative medical management can provide effective symptomatic relief. Physical therapy and exercise are important components of a multimodal approach to osteoarthritic hip pain. Patients with persistent pain may benefit from minimally invasive therapeutic approaches prior to consideration of undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The objective of this review is to provide an update of current minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of pain stemming from hip osteoarthritis; these include intra-articular injection of medication, regenerative therapies, and radiofrequency ablation.

Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement

OBJECTIVE

To compare image quality of magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the hip with intra-articular injection of high-viscosity hyaluronic acid (HA-MRA) versus Gd-based contrast agent (Gd-MRA) in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Design: single-centre, observational, retrospective, inter-individual, and cross-sectional. FAI patients who underwent HA-MRA (3 mL of high-viscosity HA plus 17 mL of saline) were compared with 37 age- and sex-matched FAI patients who underwent Gd-MRA (20 mL of 2 mmol/L solution of gadopentetate dimeglumine). Two independent blinded radiologists assessed image quality for all sequences (two-dimensional proton density, non-fat-sat axial, fat-sat coronal and sagittal; three-dimensional dual-echo steady state), using a 5-point Likert scale considering separately labrum, cartilage, round ligament, transverse ligament, and capsule. Pearson χ² and Cohen κ were used.

RESULTS

The HA-MRA group was composed of 37 patients (23 males, 14 females; median age 38 years), the Gd-MRA group of 37 patients (21 males, 16 females; median age 38 years), without significant difference for age (p = 0.937) and sex (p = 0.636). Image quality did not differ between the two readers for any structure: labrum (p ≥ 0.340), cartilage (p ≥ 0.198), round ligament (p ≥ 0.255), transverse ligament (p ≥ 0.806), and capsule (p ≥ 0.314). Inter-reader agreement (κ) ranged from 0.785 to 1.000.

CONCLUSIONS

HA-MRA provided an image quality not significantly different from that of Gd-MRA. This may open the possibility of combining MRA and viscosupplementation in one single procedure.

Efficacy of Platelet-rich Plasma for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be beneficial for patients with low back pain. However, the results remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of PRP for low back pain.

METHODS

 PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PRP on low back pain were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores within 8 weeks. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

 Three RCTs involving 131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to reduce pain scores significantly (mean difference: - 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 2.12 to - 0.81; p < 0.0001), improve the number of patients with > 50% pain relief at 3 months (risk ratio [RR]: 4.14; 95% CI, 2.22-7.74; p < 0.00001), and offer relatively good patient satisfaction (RR: 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04-3.53; p = 0.04). No increase in adverse events was reported after PRP injection (RR: 1.92; 95% CI, 0.94-3.91; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

 Compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to improve pain relief and patient satisfaction significantly with no increase in adverse events.

Different Intra-articular Injections as Therapy for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between 4 intra-articular injections (platelet-rich plasma [PRP], hyaluronic acid [HA], corticosteroid [CS], and HA plus PRP) for hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database through April 2018 to identify any randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy of HA, PRP, CS, HA-plus-PRP, and control treatments for hip OA. Baseline information-country, mean age, number of patients, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade of hip OA in the treatment and control groups-was collected. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) score at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injection.

RESULTS

We included 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,060 patients. The Kellgren-Lawrence grades of the treatment and control groups were similar in individual studies. The pair-wise meta-analysis indicated that CS and HA were superior to the control group in reducing the VAS score at 1 month and 3 months (P < .05) and that CS was superior to HA in reducing the VAS score at 1 month (P < .05). The network meta-analysis results indicated that HA and CS exhibited a beneficial role in reducing the VAS score at 1 month. CS achieved the lowest value for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the VAS score at 1 month (0.23), and the SUCRA values of the 5 interventions showed that PRP achieved the lowest SUCRA value for the VAS score at 6 months (0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

CS injections are recommended as the most efficient agent in hip OA patients in the short term. Moreover, PRP is reported to have the highest rank for pain relief for up to 6 months. Considering the limitations of this meta-analysis, future direct comparisons with more samples are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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