Khurana Ankit, Goyal Ashish, Kirubakaran P, Akhand Gaurav, Gupta Rishi, Goel Navneet
Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. BSA Medical College and Hospital, Rohini Sector 6, Delhi, 110009 India.
Department of Orthopaedics, Evangelisches Krakenhaus, HansSachsGasse, Vienna, Austria.
Indian J Orthop. 2020 Oct 8;55(Suppl 1):217-227. doi: 10.1007/s43465-020-00274-5. eCollection 2021 May.
Intra-articular injection therapy constituting corticosteroids, viscosupplements and blood-derived products are considered to have a key role in non-operative management of osteoarthritis knee. While corticosteroids and viscosupplements have proven short-term efficacy in early osteoarthritis; orthobiologics are gaining increased attention in osteoarthritis management. The aim of present study was thus to compare two commonly used biologics (platelet-rich plasma/PRP and autologous conditioned serum/ACS) to each other and to established therapies.
After required institutional clearances, all patients presenting with early primary osteoarthritis knee who had failed initial conservative management and received only unilateral knee injection were included. Patients in the PRP group were compared to the other groups (comprising the HA/hyaluronic acid group, steroid group, and a matched cohort who had been administered ACS for the same indication earlier). Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire and Visual Analogue scale (VAS) pre-injection and at 6 months.
ACS and PRP did not have any significant difference in terms of either WOMAC score ( = 0.154) or VAS score at 6 months ( = 0.850). The scores for both these orthobiologics were better than the control groups (HA group and Steroid group). Between the two control groups, HA group had better VAS scores as compared to the Steroid group ( = 0.008).
The clinical outcomes following intra-articular injection of ACS and PRP are better than controls (HA and steroid), but a difference between the two orthobiologics could not be demonstrated.
3b.
关节内注射疗法,包括皮质类固醇、粘弹性补充剂和血液衍生产品,被认为在膝骨关节炎的非手术治疗中起关键作用。虽然皮质类固醇和粘弹性补充剂在早期骨关节炎中已证明有短期疗效;但骨科生物制剂在骨关节炎治疗中越来越受到关注。因此,本研究的目的是比较两种常用的生物制剂(富血小板血浆/PRP和自体条件血清/ACS)与其他既定疗法。
在获得所需的机构许可后,纳入所有初发原发性膝骨关节炎且初始保守治疗失败并仅接受单侧膝关节注射的患者。将PRP组患者与其他组(包括透明质酸/HA组、类固醇组以及先前因相同适应症接受ACS治疗的匹配队列)进行比较。在注射前和6个月时,使用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)问卷和视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估临床结局。
在6个月时,ACS和PRP在WOMAC评分(P = 0.154)或VAS评分方面均无显著差异(P = 0.850)。这两种骨科生物制剂的评分均优于对照组(HA组和类固醇组)。在两个对照组之间,HA组的VAS评分优于类固醇组(P = 0.008)。
关节内注射ACS和PRP后的临床结局优于对照组(HA和类固醇),但无法证明这两种骨科生物制剂之间存在差异。
3b。