Pretorius Jacques, Nemat Nouman, Alsayed Almutaz, Mustafa Ahmed, Hammad Yasir, Shaju Tony, Nadeem Sayed
Trauma and Orthopaedics, Letterkenny University Hospital, Letterkenny, IRL.
Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, IRL.
Cureus. 2022 Sep 29;14(9):e29744. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29744. eCollection 2022 Sep.
Introduction Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injections have gained popularity and are suggested to be more effective and longer lasting than corticosteroid or visco-supplementation therapy. There are few studies comparing PRP with corticosteroid injections and none comparing PRP in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis with the patient acting as their own control. Methods We performed a double-blind randomized controlled trial including 29 patients (58 knees) with radiologically confirmed mild-to-moderate bilateral knee osteoarthritis. They were randomized to receive an intra-articular PRP injection into one knee and a methylprednisolone injection with a local anesthetic into the contralateral knee. The primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) before the treatment and at six weeks, three months, and six months. Secondary outcome was measured pain with the visual numerical pain rating scale (VNS). Results Corticosteroids and PRP were both effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function at all time points, with maximal improvements at six weeks and three months. PRP scored slightly better than steroid injections at six months; nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference between corticosteroids and PRP injections (F=0.173, p=0.84). The secondary outcome also delivered the same result with improvement at all time points but no statistically significant difference (F=0.168, p=0.85). Conclusions Both corticosteroids and PRP interventions are effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis up to six months with no statistically significant difference between the two.
引言 富血小板血浆(PRP)关节内注射已受到广泛关注,并且被认为比皮质类固醇或粘弹性补充疗法更有效且效果更持久。很少有研究比较PRP与皮质类固醇注射,且没有研究将双侧膝关节骨关节炎患者的PRP治疗与患者自身对照进行比较。方法 我们进行了一项双盲随机对照试验,纳入29例(58膝)经放射学证实为轻至中度双侧膝关节骨关节炎的患者。他们被随机分配接受一侧膝关节内PRP注射,另一侧膝关节注射甲基强的松龙加局部麻醉剂。主要结局指标在治疗前、六周、三个月和六个月时使用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)进行测量。次要结局指标使用视觉数字疼痛评分量表(VNS)测量疼痛程度。结果 在所有时间点,皮质类固醇和PRP在改善疼痛、僵硬和功能方面均有效,在六周和三个月时改善最为明显。在六个月时,PRP的评分略高于类固醇注射;然而,皮质类固醇和PRP注射之间没有统计学上的显著差异(F = 0.173,p = 0.84)。次要结局指标也得出了相同的结果,所有时间点均有改善,但无统计学上的显著差异(F = 0.168,p = 0.85)。结论 皮质类固醇和PRP干预在改善双侧膝关节骨关节炎患者的疼痛、僵硬和功能方面均有效,长达六个月,两者之间无统计学上的显著差异。