Riboh Jonathan C, Saltzman Bryan M, Yanke Adam B, Fortier Lisa, Cole Brian J
Division of Sports Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Division of Sports Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Mar;44(3):792-800. doi: 10.1177/0363546515580787. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) is hypothesized to be more suitable for intra-articular injection than leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
To compare clinical outcomes and rates of adverse reactions between LP-PRP and LR-PRP for this application.
Meta-analysis.
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were reviewed. The primary outcome was the incidence of local adverse reactions. Secondary outcomes were the changes in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between baseline and final follow-up measurements. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, with a post hoc meta-regression to correct for baseline differences in WOMAC scores. Treatment rankings were based on surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.
Included in the analysis were 6 randomized controlled trials (evidence level 1) and 3 prospective comparative studies (evidence level 2) with a total of 1055 patients. Injection of LP-PRP resulted in significantly better WOMAC scores than did injection of hyaluronic acid (mean difference, -21.14; 95% CI, -39.63 to -2.65) or placebo (mean difference, -17.84; 95% CI, -34.95 to -0.73). No such difference was observed with LR-PRP (mean difference, -14.28; 95% CI, -44.80 to 16.25). All treatment groups resulted in equivalent IKDC subjective scores. The SUCRA analysis showed that LP-PRP was the highest ranked treatment for both measures of clinical efficacy (WOMAC and IKDC). Finally, PRP injections resulted in a higher incidence of adverse reactions than hyaluronic acid (odds ratio, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.38-22.90), but there was no difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.05-11.93). These reactions were nearly always local swelling and pain, with a single study reporting medical side effects including syncope, dizziness, headache, gastritis, and tachycardia (17/1055 total patients).
LP-PRP results in improved functional outcome scores compared with hyaluronic acid and placebo when used for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. LP-PRP and LR-PRP have similar safety profiles, although both induce more transient reactions than does hyaluronic acid. Adverse reactions to PRP may not be directly related to leukocyte concentration.
在膝关节骨关节炎的治疗中,与富含白细胞的富血小板血浆(LR-PRP)相比,贫白细胞的富血小板血浆(LP-PRP)被认为更适合关节内注射。
比较LP-PRP和LR-PRP在该应用中的临床疗效和不良反应发生率。
荟萃分析。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库。主要结局是局部不良反应的发生率。次要结局是国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)主观评分以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)评分在基线和最终随访测量之间的变化。进行了贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,并进行事后荟萃回归以校正WOMAC评分的基线差异。治疗排名基于累积排名曲线下面积(SUCRA)概率。
纳入分析的有6项随机对照试验(证据等级1)和3项前瞻性比较研究(证据等级2),共1055例患者。注射LP-PRP后的WOMAC评分显著优于注射透明质酸(平均差值,-21.14;95%CI,-39.63至-2.65)或安慰剂(平均差值,-17.84;95%CI,-34.95至-0.73)。LR-PRP未观察到此类差异(平均差值,-14.28;95%CI,-44.80至16.25)。所有治疗组的IKDC主观评分相当。SUCRA分析表明,在两种临床疗效指标(WOMAC和IKDC)上,LP-PRP的排名最高。最后,与透明质酸相比,PRP注射导致的不良反应发生率更高(优势比,5.63;95%CI,1.38 - 22.90),但LR-PRP和LP-PRP之间无差异(优势比,0.78;95%CI,0.05 - 11.93)。这些反应几乎总是局部肿胀和疼痛,一项研究报告了包括晕厥、头晕、头痛、胃炎和心动过速在内的医疗副作用(共17例/1055例患者)。
在用于治疗膝关节骨关节炎时,与透明质酸和安慰剂相比,LP-PRP可改善功能结局评分。LP-PRP和LR-PRP具有相似的安全性,尽管两者引起的短暂反应均多于透明质酸。PRP的不良反应可能与白细胞浓度无直接关系。