Italian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Blood Transfus. 2023 Mar;21(2):119-136. doi: 10.2450/2022.0087-22. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated ultrasound (US)-guided injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as conservative treatment of tendinopathies.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of US-guided PRP for tendinopathies.
We found 33 RCT (2,025 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 8 in lateral epicondylitis, 5 in plantar fasciitis, 5 in Achilles tendinopathy, 7 in rotator cuff tendinopathy, 3 in patellar tendinopathy and 5 in carpal tunnel syndrome. PRP, given as a single injection (20 trials) or multiple injections (13 trials), was compared to US-guided injection of steroids, saline, autologous whole blood, local anesthetic, dry needling, prolotherapy, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, or with non-injective interventions. The outcomes more commonly reported included pain and functional measures, subgrouped as in the short-term (<3 months from the intervention), medium-term (3 to 6 months) or long-term (≥12 months). No clear between-group differences in these outcomes were observed in patients with lateral epicondylitis, plantar fasciitis, or Achilles, rotator cuff or patellar tendinopathy. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, visual analog scale scores for pain at 3 and 6 months and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire severity scores at 1, 3 and 6 months were significantly lower in PRP recipients than in controls. The certainty of evidence of all these comparisons was graded as low or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency. Pain at the injection site was more common among PRP recipients than among controls receiving other US-guided injections.
In patients with tendinopathies, a trend towards pain reduction and functional improvement from baseline was observed after US-guided PRP injection, but in the majority of the comparisons, the effect size was comparable to that observed in control groups.
在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们评估了超声(US)引导下富血小板血浆(PRP)注射作为治疗肌腱病的保守治疗方法。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCOPUS、OVID 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以确定关于 US 引导下 PRP 治疗肌腱病的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们发现了 33 项符合纳入标准的 RCT(2025 名受试者):8 项用于外侧肱骨上髁炎,5 项用于足底筋膜炎,5 项用于跟腱病,7 项用于肩袖肌腱病,3 项用于髌骨肌腱病和 5 项用于腕管综合征。PRP 作为单次注射(20 项试验)或多次注射(13 项试验),与 US 引导下注射类固醇、盐水、自体全血、局部麻醉剂、干针、普罗疗法、骨髓间充质干细胞或非注射干预进行比较。更常报告的结局包括疼痛和功能测量,分为短期(干预后<3 个月)、中期(3 至 6 个月)或长期(≥12 个月)。在外侧肱骨上髁炎、足底筋膜炎或跟腱、肩袖或髌骨肌腱病患者中,未观察到这些结局在不同组之间有明显差异。在腕管综合征患者中,PRP 组在 3 个月和 6 个月时的疼痛视觉模拟评分以及 1、3 和 6 个月时的波士顿腕管综合征问卷严重程度评分均显著低于对照组。由于偏倚风险、不精确性和/或不一致性,所有这些比较的证据确定性均被评为低或极低。与接受其他 US 引导下注射的对照组相比,PRP 组患者在注射部位更常见疼痛。
在肌腱病患者中,US 引导下 PRP 注射后从基线开始观察到疼痛减轻和功能改善的趋势,但在大多数比较中,效应大小与对照组观察到的相似。