Department of Physiotherapy, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Br J Sports Med. 2015 May;49(10):657-72. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094036. Epub 2014 Nov 21.
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) is still controversial. We investigated the effect of PRP injections in patients with knee OA based on decreasing pain, improving function, global assessment and changes regarding joint imaging. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive, systematic literature search in computerised databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and PEDro) until June 2014 for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials. These were graded for risk of bias and a level of evidence was provided. If possible, meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ten trials were included. In these, intra-articular PRP injections were more effective for pain reduction (mean difference (MD) -2.45; 95% CI -2.92 to -1.98; p value <0.00001 and MD -2.07; 95% CI -2.59 to -1.55; p value <0.00001, single and double PRP injections, respectively) compared with placebo at 6 months postinjection. Intra-articular PRP injections were compared with hyaluronic acid and showed a statistically significant difference in favour of PRP on pain reduction based on the visual analogue scale and numeric rating scale (standardised mean difference -0.92; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.63; p value <0.00001) at 6 months postinjection. Almost all trials revealed a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the current evidence, PRP injections reduced pain more effectively than did placebo injections in OA of the knee (level of evidence: limited due to a high risk of bias). This significant effect on pain was also seen when PRP injections were compared with hyaluronic acid injections (level of evidence: moderate due to a generally high risk of bias). Additionally, function improved significantly more when PRP injections were compared with controls (limited to moderate evidence). More large randomised studies of good quality and low risk of bias are needed to test whether PRP injections should be a routine part of management of patients with OA of the knee.
背景:富血小板血浆(PRP)注射治疗骨关节炎(OA)的疗效仍存在争议。我们基于减轻疼痛、改善功能、整体评估以及关节影像学变化,调查了 PRP 注射治疗膝骨关节炎患者的疗效。
方法:我们在计算机数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、CENTRAL、Web of Science 和 PEDro)中进行了全面、系统的文献检索,检索时间截至 2014 年 6 月,纳入随机或非随机对照试验。对这些研究进行了偏倚风险评估,并提供了证据水平。如果可能,进行了荟萃分析。
结果:纳入了 10 项试验。这些试验表明,关节内 PRP 注射在减轻疼痛方面比安慰剂更有效(注射后 6 个月时,平均差值(MD)-2.45;95%置信区间(CI)-2.92 至-1.98;p 值<0.00001 和 MD-2.07;95%CI-2.59 至-1.55;p 值<0.00001,单次和双次 PRP 注射分别)。关节内 PRP 注射与透明质酸的比较显示,基于视觉模拟评分和数字评分量表,PRP 注射在减轻疼痛方面具有统计学显著优势(注射后 6 个月时,标准化均数差值-0.92;95%CI-1.20 至-0.63;p 值<0.00001)。几乎所有试验都存在高度偏倚风险。
结论:根据现有证据,PRP 注射在膝骨关节炎中比安慰剂注射更能有效减轻疼痛(证据水平:由于高度偏倚风险而有限)。当 PRP 注射与透明质酸注射进行比较时,也观察到了这种对疼痛的显著效果(证据水平:由于普遍存在高度偏倚风险而中等)。此外,与对照组相比,PRP 注射在改善功能方面的效果更为显著(限于中等证据水平)。需要更多高质量、低偏倚风险的大型随机研究来检验 PRP 注射是否应成为膝骨关节炎患者管理的常规方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-10-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-10-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-4-2
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-12-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025-8-12