Suppr超能文献

富血小板血浆与皮质类固醇注射治疗肩袖疾病患者:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections in the management of patients with rotator cuff disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

St George's University of London, London, UK.

University of Nicosia Medical School, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.

出版信息

J Orthop Res. 2023 Jan;41(1):7-20. doi: 10.1002/jor.25463. Epub 2022 Oct 31.

Abstract

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an alternative to corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing rotator cuff disease. This meta-analysis investigated differences between PRP and CS for function and pain scores in significance and minimal clinical important difference (MCID). A literature search of Ovid Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Epub, and Scopus was conducted from inception to October 28, 2021. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years with a diagnosis of rotator cuff disease. This review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021278740). Twelve studies met eligibility criteria (n = 639) of patients receiving either PRP or CS. At short-term follow-up, a difference favored CS compared to PRP in baseline change for disability of arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score (MD = -5.08, 95% CI: -8.00, -2.15; p = 0.0007; I  = 0%) and simple shoulder test (SST) (MD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.33, 2.18; p = 0.008; I  = 0%). At intermediate follow-up, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the DASH score (MD = 3.41, 95% CI: 0.67, 6.15; p = 0.01; I  = 0%). At medium-term, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) score (MD = -4.42, 95% CI: -8.16, -0.67; p = 0.02; I  = 0%). Both treatments achieved individual MCID for each score. Despite favoring CS at short-term follow-up and PRP at intermediate- and medium-term follow-up, functional and pain scores did not demonstrate any clinical difference between the two treatment modalities in management of rotator cuff disease at all follow-up periods.

摘要

富血小板血浆(PRP)是治疗肩袖疾病的皮质类固醇(CS)注射的替代方法。本荟萃分析研究了 PRP 和 CS 在功能和疼痛评分方面的差异,以及在意义和最小临床重要差异(MCID)方面的差异。从 2021 年 10 月 28 日开始,对 Ovid Cochrane 图书馆、Medline、Embase、Epub 和 Scopus 进行了文献检索。合格的研究报告了年龄在 18 岁以上的肩袖疾病患者。本综述在 PROSPERO(ID:CRD42021278740)中进行了注册。12 项研究符合纳入标准(n=639),患者接受 PRP 或 CS 治疗。在短期随访中,与 PRP 相比,CS 在基线改变方面更有利于残疾上肢、肩部和手部(DASH)评分(MD=-5.08,95%CI:-8.00,-2.15;p=0.0007;I²=0%)和简单肩部测试(SST)(MD=1.25,95%CI:0.33,2.18;p=0.008;I²=0%)。在中期随访中,与 CS 相比,PRP 对 DASH 评分的基线变化更有优势(MD=3.41,95%CI:0.67,6.15;p=0.01;I²=0%)。在中期随访中,与 CS 相比,PRP 对美国肩肘外科医生协会(ASES)评分的基线变化更有优势(MD=-4.42,95%CI:-8.16,-0.67;p=0.02;I²=0%)。两种治疗方法在每个评分上都达到了个体 MCID。尽管 CS 在短期随访中更有优势,而 PRP 在中期和中期随访中更有优势,但在所有随访期间,两种治疗方法在肩袖疾病的管理中,在功能和疼痛评分方面并没有显示出任何临床差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6641/10092782/08a27c397c26/JOR-41-7-g003.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验