Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Nov;37(11):2282-2290.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.014. Epub 2022 May 7.
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) usage in orthopedics continues to rise, despite guidelines suggesting non-superiority to comparative cohorts. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on PRP efficacy using two clinical assessments: (1) Visual Analog Scale and (2) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. We assessed consistency and clinical relevancy by determining study heterogeneity (eg, sample sizes, ages, body mass index, arthritic severities, etc.). Comparative cohorts were: (A) hyaluronic acid (HA); (B) corticosteroid (CS); (C) normal saline (NS); and (D) exercise therapy. We performed sub-analyses of structural changes assessed on ultrasound, radiograph, or magnetic resonance imaging .
We utilized PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to December 1, 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-four studies met criteria, with comparisons to: HA (n = 11); CS (n = 6); NS (n = 5); and exercise therapy (n = 3). Seven studies assessed structural changes. Evaluations utilized a methodological scoring system. I statistics and forest plots pooled analyses and delineated study results.
PRP led to Visual Analog Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index improvements in most studies when compared to HA, CS, and NS (P ≤ .05). Comparison to exercise therapy resulted in inconclusive findings (P ≥ .05). However, substantial heterogeneity (I ≥ 76%) was reported due to study variability. No differences were found when assessing structural changes or cartilage thickness by magnetic resonance imaging (standardized mean difference -0.01 [-0.19, 0.18], P = .91).
PRP may be associated with pain and functional improvements but was not clinically relevant (inconsistent study- and patient-metrics). In addition, PRP did not confer superiority when assessing knee-related structural changes.
尽管有指南表明富血小板血浆 (PRP) 并不优于对照组,但在骨科领域,其应用仍在不断增加。因此,我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,使用了两种临床评估方法:(1)视觉模拟评分法和(2)西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数。我们通过确定研究异质性(例如样本量、年龄、体重指数、关节炎严重程度等)来评估一致性和临床相关性。对照组包括:(A)透明质酸 (HA);(B)皮质类固醇 (CS);(C)生理盐水 (NS);和(D)运动疗法。我们还对超声、射线照相或磁共振成像评估的结构变化进行了亚分析。
我们根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目,利用 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆和 Embase 数据库,检索至 2021 年 12 月 1 日的文献。24 项研究符合标准,与以下方面进行了比较:HA(n=11);CS(n=6);NS(n=5)和运动疗法(n=3)。有 7 项研究评估了结构变化。评估采用了一种方法学评分系统。I 统计量和森林图对分析结果进行了汇总和描述。
与 HA、CS 和 NS 相比,PRP 可使大多数研究的视觉模拟评分法和西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数得到改善(P≤0.05)。与运动疗法相比,结果不确定(P≥0.05)。然而,由于研究的变异性,报告了大量的异质性(I≥76%)。通过磁共振成像评估结构变化或软骨厚度时未发现差异(标准化均数差-0.01[-0.19, 0.18],P=0.91)。
PRP 可能与疼痛和功能改善有关,但没有临床意义(研究和患者指标不一致)。此外,在评估膝关节相关结构变化时,PRP 并没有表现出优越性。