A systematic review on the efficacy of different types of platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare pain relief, functional improvement, and the success rate of treatment using 2 different types of PRP by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from database inception to August 2021 using the following terms: lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP, and platelet-rich plasma. The PRP patients included in our study were divided into those receiving leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) and those receiving leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) according to the different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included patient characteristics, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, success rates, and the safety of treatment at short- and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were evaluated in our analysis, including 2420 LE patients. LP-PRP was used in 19 of these studies, LR-PRP was used in 13, and both LP-PRP and LR-PRP were used in 1. Patients in both PRP groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment compared with before treatment. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before treatment, ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term follow-up, and ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 at long-term follow-up in the LR-PRP group. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term follow-up, and 0.7 to 2.7 at long-term follow-up in the LP-PRP group. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7, respectively, before treatment and ranged from 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0, respectively, at long-term follow-up. The success rates in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 70% to 100% and 36% to 100%, respectively. The complication rate was lower in the LP-PRP group (3.9%) than in the LR-PRP group (6.4%, P = .029), with the main complication being temporary pain after PRP treatment.

CONCLUSION

PRP treatment demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in LE patients regardless of the type of PRP. There were no significant differences in pain relief and functional improvement between LR-PRP and LP-PRP. The main complication was temporary pain after PRP injection, and the complication rate in the LP-PRP group was lower than that in the LR-PRP group.