Intra-articular injection of Platelet rich plasma versus Hyaluronic acid for moderate knee osteoarthritis. A prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial on 189 patients with follow-up for three years

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Pain: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging biological intervention for osteoarthritis (OA), yet the outcomes remain uncertain. The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding the use of PRP for knee and hip OA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent systematic reviews have found significant clinical improvements in outcomes after the administration of PRP compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with knee OA. One of these reviews included bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as a comparison group and found no significant differences in outcomes between PRP and BMAC. Currently, the literature is lacking on whether leukocyte-rich or leukocyte-poor PRP is superior in patients with knee OA. The literature on PRP for hip OA has not provided consistent results as it has for the knee. Two recent systematic reviews evaluated RCTs for patients undergoing treatment with either PRP or HA for hip OA and found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups at final follow-up. Current literature regarding the association between OA grade and PRP efficacy has found varying results. The use of PRP injections in the treatment of knee OA appears to be favorable, resulting in clinically comparable or superior outcomes compared to other injection treatments. However, the clinical efficacy of PRP injections in hip OA is far less consistent. Evidence is lacking to suggest that the presence of leukocytes significantly influences clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials on larger cohorts, with longer follow-up, and with comparable formulations are required before recommendations can be made regarding use of PRP for hip OA, the effect of leukocyte concentration, and clinical efficacy based on OA grade.

Effect of local mud application in patients with knee osteoarthritis - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mud therapy is a safe, cost-effective approach for Knee Osteoarthritis (OA), promoting healing through warmth and minerals, providing pain relief, and improving function. The main objective of the current review is to assess the effectiveness of local mud application for pain management in patients with Knee OA. The published papers were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrails.gov, Web of Science, and references from relevant systematic reviews from 1990 January to February 2023. Trials meeting the predefined criteria were included in this meta-analysis. The main focus of this study was to assess pain as a primary outcome measure. R software version 4.3.1 and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1 were used to derive meta-analysis and risk of bias in the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed using the fixed-effects model to obtain a summary of treatment effects, which calculated the effect size (standardized mean difference; SMD) along with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI).In the current meta-analysis, a total of ten studies with 560 Knee OA patients were included. Findings demonstrated significant effects of local mud application on pain (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.16), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (SMD: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.68, -0.29) for individuals suffering from Knee OA. The current study identified compelling evidence to support the recommendation of mud application as an effective intervention for individuals with Knee OA. While local mud application may serve as a supplementary therapy alongside conventional medical approaches for improved Knee OA management, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings.

Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Hyaluronic Acid Injections Outperform Corticosteroids in Pain and Function Scores at a Minimum of 6 Months as Intra-Articular Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of common intra-articular injections used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, including corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), with a minimum follow-up of 6-months.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in August 2022 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Level I to II randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that investigated the treatments of interest were included. Patient-reported outcome scores for pain and function at baseline and at latest follow-up were extracted, and the change in scores was converted to uniform 0 to 100 scales. Arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was created to compare the treatment arms in pain and function.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies comprising a total of 9,338 knees were included. The most studied intra-articular injection was HA (40.9%), followed by placebo (26.2%), PRP (21.5%), CS (8.8%), and then BMAC (2.5%). HA and PRP both led to a significant improvement in pain compared with placebo. HA, PRP, and BMAC all led to a significant improvement in function scores when compared with placebo. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) of the interventions revealed that PRP, BMAC, and HA were the treatments with the highest likelihood of improvement in both pain and function, with overall SUCRA scores of 91.54, 76.46, and 53.12, respectively. The overall SUCRA scores for CS and placebo were 15.18 and 13.70, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 6-month follow-up, PRP demonstrated significantly improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with placebo. Additionally, PRP exhibited the highest SUCRA values for these outcomes when compared with BMAC, HA, and CS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Alternative Injections for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Statistical Fragility Index-Based Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Based in part on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that suggest a beneficial effect over alternative treatment options, the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widespread and increasing. However, the extent to which these studies are vulnerable to slight variations in the outcomes of patients remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the statistical fragility of conclusions from RCTs that reported outcomes of patients with knee OA who were treated with PRP versus alternative nonoperative management strategies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

All RCTs comparing PRP with alternative nonoperative treatment options for knee OA were identified. The fragility index (FI) and reverse FI were applied to assess the robustness of conclusions regarding the efficacy of PRP for knee OA. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the minimum number of patients from ≥1 trials included in the meta-analysis for which a modification on the event status would change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect.

RESULTS

In total, this analysis included outcomes from 1993 patients with a mean ± SD age of 58.0 ± 3.8 years. The mean number of events required to reverse significance of individual RCTs (FI) was 4.57 ± 5.85. Based on random-effects meta-analyses, PRP demonstrated a significantly higher rate of successful outcomes when compared with hyaluronic acid (P = .002; odds ratio [OR], 2.19; 95% CI, 1.33-3.62), as well as higher rates of patient-reported symptom relief (P = .019; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07-2.24), not requiring a reintervention after the initial injection treatment (P = .002; OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.33-3.53), and achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain improvement (P = .007; OR, 6.19; 95% CI, 1.63-23.42) when compared with all alternative nonoperative treatments. Overall, the mean number of events per meta-analysis required to change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect was 8.67 ± 4.50.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions drawn from individual RCTs evaluating PRP for knee OA demonstrated slight robustness. On meta-analysis, PRP demonstrated a significant advantage over hyaluronic acid as well as improved symptom relief, lower rates of reintervention, and more frequent achievement of the MCID for pain improvement when compared with alternative nonoperative treatment options. Statistically significant pooled treatment effects evaluating PRP for knee OA are more robust than approximately half of all comparable meta-analyses in medicine and health care. Future RCTs and meta-analyses should consider reporting FIs and fragility quotients to facilitate interpretation of results in their proper context.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with Tai Chi for knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a placebo-controlled randomized trial

BACKGROUND

No definitive treatment methods of curative for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The combined therapies that into account both the biochemical and biomechanical may provide potential opportunities for treat KOA, and previous studies have demonstrated that the platelet-rich plasma of intra-articular injection (IAI-PRP) and exercise treatments afford more benefits than do their corresponding monotherapies. The absence of a specific exercise plan and detailed explanation renders the aforementioned study results questionable. Furthermore, Tai Chi (TC) with moderate-intensity, whole body movements and good adherence may prove to be more effective for treating KOA. However, few studies examined the effectiveness and safety of combined IAI-PRP and TC for KOA.

METHODS

This study protocol will be a placebo-controlled, assessor-blinded randomized trial involving 12-week intervention and 1-year follow-up. The stratified randomization will be used to randomly assign the 212 participants to four groups: group A (placebo IAI); group B (PRP IAI); group C (TC and placebo IAI); group D (TC and PRP IAI). Injection will be performed once a week, three consecutive times as a course, after a week of rest to continue the next course, a total of 3 courses (12 week). Additionally, the TC interventions will be carried out 3 days per week for a total of 12 weeks. The primary outcome measures will include the efficacy (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), acceptability and safety of these interventions. The secondary outcome measures will include physical function (Timed Up and Go test), walking function (Gait Analysis), inflammatory factor levels (e.g., Interleukin-1 β, interleukin-6, vascular endothelial growth factor), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey), volume of patellofemoral cartilage and effusion-synovitis (MRI). Two-way of variance with repeated measures will be applied to examine the main effects of the group and the time factor and group-time interaction effects for all outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

This trial will be first one to propose an integrated scheme combing IAI-PRP and TC for treatment of KOA, based on the consideration of the biochemical and biomechanical pathogenesis of KOA. These results of the study will provide evidence with high quality for integrated IAI-PRP and TC to treatment KOA. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300067559. Registered on 11 January 2023.

Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Receive Platelet-Rich Plasma or Bone-Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections Have Better Outcomes Than Patients Who Receive Hyaluronic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature in order to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I studies that compared the clinical efficacy of at least 2 of the following 3 injection therapies: PRP, BMAC, and HA for knee OA. The search phrase used was knee AND osteoarthritis AND randomized AND ("platelet rich plasma" OR "bone marrow aspirate" OR "hyaluronic acid"). Patients were primarily assessed based on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (all Level I) met inclusion criteria, including 1,042 patients undergoing intra-articular injection(s) with PRP (mean age 57.7 years, mean follow-up 13.5 months), 226 patients with BMAC (mean age 57.0 years, mean follow-up 17.5 months), and 1,128 patients with HA (mean age 59.0 years, mean follow-up 14.4 months). Non-network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p < 0.01), and Subjective IKDC scores (p < 0.001) in PRP patients when compared to HA patients. Similarly, network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p = 0.03), and Subjective IKDC (p < 0.001) scores in BMAC patients when compared to HA patients. There were no significant differences in post-injection outcome scores when comparing PRP to BMAC.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP or BMAC can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared to HA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, Meta-Analysis of Level I studies.

Research trends of platelet-rich plasma therapy on knee osteoarthritis from 2011 to 2021: A review

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been widely used to alleviate osteoarthritis of the knee, and research results are abundant. However, there are no bibliometric reports in publications in this field. Therefore, the current status of PRP for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee from 2011 to 2021 was analyzed using Citespace 6.1.R2 software.

METHODS

Publications regarding PRP treating Knee Osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2021 were extracted from the Web of Science database. CiteSpace was used to analyze the number of publications, countries, institutions, journals, authors, cited references, and keywords by using standard bibliometric indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 988 publications were searched from 2011 to 2021. In the last decade, the number of publications has increased in the field. Brian J. Cole was the author with the most output, with 31 relevant articles, and Giuseppe Filardo ranked first in cited authors. Am J Sport Med was the most cited journal. In this field, the most prolific country is the United States and the most prolific institution is Rush University. An article published by Sandeep Patel ranked first in cited references with 118 citations. "Randomized controlled trial" was the most bursting keyword and other more popular keywords about PRP for knee osteoarthritis: "hyaluronic acid," "double-blind," and "mesenchymal stem cell."

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric study provides a decade of current clinical research on PRP for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee, which can help researchers understand the hot spots in the field and provide a new direction for their research.

Comparison of clinical efficiency between intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but the comparison of their efficiency is still inconclusive.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of PRP and HA in the treatment of OA by meta-analysis and to explore the effects of different injection times and leukocyte concentration on the efficacy of PRP.

Design

Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The data were analyzed by Review Manager v5.4.1.

Data sources and methods

Articles were retrieved and screened from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The outcome included the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS), adverse events (AEs), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the satisfaction rate.

Results

A total of 30 articles involving 2733 patients were included. The total WOMAC score and IKDC score of the PRP group were better than those of the HA group at the last follow-up time, while there was no significant difference in AEs, satisfaction rate, and VAS between the two groups. In our subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference between single-injection PRP and triple-injection PRP. Leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was better than leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) in IKDC, but there was no significant difference between them in the other scores.

Conclusions

In the treatment of OA, compared with HA, PRP performed better in the improvement of the patient's function. There was no significant difference in VAS and AEs between the two groups, and the safety was comparable. LP-PRP looked to be superior to LR-PRP in functional recovery, but there appeared to be no significant difference in pain relief between them. There was no significant difference between single PRP and triple PRP in the subgroup analysis.

Comparison of polynucleotide, sodium hyaluronate, and crosslinked sodium hyaluronate for the management of painful knee osteoarthritis: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of sodium polynucleotide, classic hyaluronic acid, and crosslinked hyaluronic acid for the management of painful knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial.

SETTING

Multicenter study.

SUBJECTS

Patients with chronic painful knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Ninety patients were selected and randomized into polynucleotide, classic hyaluronic acid, and crosslinked hyaluronic acid groups (30 per group). Intra-articular injections of the viscosupplement for each group were administered to the patients three times at one-week intervals. The primary outcome was differences in changes of weight-bearing pain scores at 16 weeks between the groups. The secondary outcomes were changes in the intensity of knee pain during weight-bearing, walking, and rest, and functional disability, quality of life, and adverse events during the 16-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

At 16 weeks, the polynucleotide group showed a higher reduction in pain score using a Visual Analog Scale score (0-100) than the classic hyaluronic acid (-17.6 [95% CI = -35.1 to -0.1]; P = 0.048) and crosslinked hyaluronic acid (-22.4 [95% CI = -41.5 to -3.3]; P = 0.016) groups. The polynucleotide and crosslinked hyaluronic acid groups showed an early-onset reduction in knee pain during weight-bearing, walking, and rest. All three groups showed reductions in functional disability and improved quality of life at 16 weeks without inter-group differences. No severe adverse events were reported throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

Polynucleotide significantly relieves pain more and relieves pain faster in patients with knee osteoarthritis than classic and crosslinked hyaluronic acid, with improved health-related quality of life.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

Clinical Research Information Service (https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index.jsp; Identifier: KCT0005308).

Does Bone Marrow Edema Influence the Clinical Results of Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is increasingly used for the intra-articular treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, clinical studies on PRP injections reported controversial results. Bone marrow edema (BME) can cause symptoms by affecting the subchondral bone and it is not targeted by intra-articular treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate if the presence of BME can influence the outcome of intra-articular PRP injections in knee OA patients. A total of 201 patients were included in the study, 80 with and 121 without BME at the baseline MRI. BME area and site were evaluated, and BME was graded using the Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS). Patients were assessed with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, the EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and the Tegner score at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months. Overall, the presence of BME did not influence the clinical results of intra-articular PRP injections in these patients treated for knee OA. Patients with BME presented a similar failure rate and clinical improvement after PRP treatment compared to patients without BME. The area and site of BME did not affect clinical outcomes. However, patients with a higher BME grade had a higher failure rate.

Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Autologous Conditioned Serum in Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Clinical Results of a Five-Year Retrospective Study

Objectives: There is no consensus on the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous conditioned serum (ACS) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Also, the group of patients who will benefit most from this treatment is not clear. This study aims to understand the effects of two treatment modalities: ACS and PRP on pain and clinical scores in the treatment of OA. For this reason, we compared the long-term (five-year follow up) clinical results of the patients to whom these two treatment methods were applied.

Materials and methods: Eighty-two knee osteoarthritis cases, selected from a database prospectively maintained in our tertiary university hospital after institutional ethics committee approval, examined between January 2013 and September 2020 and treated with ACS and PRP by the same orthobiological treatment team, were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical results of group A (n=40) treated with ACS and group B (n=42) treated with PRP were statistically analyzed. Clinical evaluations were made pre-injection and at one, six, 12, 24 and 60 months post-treatment, using the knee injury and osteoarthritis result score (KOOS) for the evaluation of function and a visual analog scale (VAS) for the evaluation of pain.

Results: Side effects were noted in two patients (5%) in group A and 16 patients (38.1%) in group B. More side effects were seen in group B compared to group A (p<0.001). The better VAS scores in both groups were detected in the sixth and 12th months. When VAS scores were examined, better results were obtained in group A in the 12th and 24th months (p<0.05). When KOOS scores were examined, the superiority of ACS to PRP at 12 and 24 months was shown in KOOS.S, KOOS.P and KOOS.ADL scores (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of all scores and baseline scores at 60 months.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of ACS and PRP treatments can last up to two years. After two years, the effectiveness of both treatments decreases. Comparing the two treatments, ACS treatment showed better results on VAS and KOOS scores compared to PRP treatment.