Department of Orthopaedics, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, England.
Arthroscopy. 2013 Nov;29(11):1851-62. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.272. Epub 2013 Sep 21.
To evaluate the evidence for application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in lateral epicondylitis.
We carried out a systematic review of the current evidence on the effects of PRP in lateral epicondylitis on clinical outcomes. We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Embase databases using various combinations of the commercial names of each PRP preparation and "lateral epicondylitis" (with its associated terms), looking specifically at human studies. Data validity was assessed and collected on clinical outcome.
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 5 were randomized controlled trials. Two cohort studies showed that PRP improved clinical satisfaction scores. One case-control study showed that PRP yielded a significantly greater improvement in symptoms compared with bupivacaine. Two randomized controlled trials compared the effect of injections of PRP and blood. Only 1 of the studies noted a significant difference at the 6-week time point. Three randomized controlled trials compared corticosteroids with PRP. Two of the smaller trials, which had follow-up periods of 6 weeks and 3 months, showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The largest randomized controlled trial found that PRP had significant benefit compared with corticosteroids with regard to pain and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores at 1- and 2-year time points.
This review highlights the limited but evolving evidence for the use of PRP in lateral epicondylitis; however, further research is required to understand the concentration and preparation that facilitate the best clinical outcome. Characterizing the timing of the intervention would optimize the health economics behind the decision to treat for the patient and health care provider.
Level III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.
评估富血小板血浆(PRP)在肘外侧肌腱炎中的应用证据。
我们对 PRP 在肘外侧肌腱炎中对临床结局影响的现有证据进行了系统评价。我们使用 PRP 制剂的各种组合的商业名称和“肘外侧肌腱炎”(及其相关术语),对 PubMed、Medline、Cochrane、CINAHL(护理与联合健康文献累积索引)和 Embase 数据库进行了全面搜索,专门寻找人类研究。对临床结局评估和收集数据的有效性。
符合纳入标准的 9 项研究中,有 5 项为随机对照试验。两项队列研究表明 PRP 提高了临床满意度评分。一项病例对照研究表明,与布比卡因相比,PRP 显著改善了症状。两项随机对照试验比较了 PRP 和血液注射的效果。只有一项研究在 6 周时间点注意到了显著差异。三项随机对照试验比较了皮质类固醇与 PRP。两项规模较小的试验(随访期为 6 周和 3 个月)显示治疗组之间无显著差异。最大的随机对照试验发现,PRP 在疼痛和手臂、肩部和手功能障碍评分方面,与皮质类固醇相比,在 1 年和 2 年时间点具有显著益处。
本综述强调了 PRP 在肘外侧肌腱炎中应用的有限但不断发展的证据;然而,需要进一步研究以了解促进最佳临床结局的浓度和制剂。确定干预时机将优化患者和医疗保健提供者决策治疗背后的健康经济学。
三级,对一级至三级研究的系统评价。