Chen Lili, Jin Shirong, Yao Yunheng, He Sixian, He Jinshen
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha 410013, China.
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023 Mar 17;15:1759720X231157043. doi: 10.1177/1759720X231157043. eCollection 2023.
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but the comparison of their efficiency is still inconclusive.
The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of PRP and HA in the treatment of OA by meta-analysis and to explore the effects of different injection times and leukocyte concentration on the efficacy of PRP.
Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The data were analyzed by Review Manager v5.4.1.
Articles were retrieved and screened from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The outcome included the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS), adverse events (AEs), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and the satisfaction rate.
A total of 30 articles involving 2733 patients were included. The total WOMAC score and IKDC score of the PRP group were better than those of the HA group at the last follow-up time, while there was no significant difference in AEs, satisfaction rate, and VAS between the two groups. In our subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference between single-injection PRP and triple-injection PRP. Leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was better than leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) in IKDC, but there was no significant difference between them in the other scores.
In the treatment of OA, compared with HA, PRP performed better in the improvement of the patient's function. There was no significant difference in VAS and AEs between the two groups, and the safety was comparable. LP-PRP looked to be superior to LR-PRP in functional recovery, but there appeared to be no significant difference in pain relief between them. There was no significant difference between single PRP and triple PRP in the subgroup analysis.
富血小板血浆(PRP)和透明质酸(HA)是骨关节炎(OA)的非手术治疗方法,但它们疗效的比较仍无定论。
本研究的目的是通过荟萃分析比较PRP和HA治疗OA的疗效,并探讨不同注射次数和白细胞浓度对PRP疗效的影响。
进行荟萃分析和亚组分析。数据采用Review Manager v5.4.1进行分析。
从PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和Embase检索并筛选文章。结局指标包括西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)总分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、不良事件(AE)、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分和满意率。
共纳入30篇文章,涉及2733例患者。在最后随访时,PRP组的WOMAC总分和IKDC评分优于HA组,而两组在AE、满意率和VAS方面无显著差异。在我们的亚组分析中,单次注射PRP和三次注射PRP之间无显著差异。低白细胞PRP(LP-PRP)在IKDC评分上优于高白细胞PRP(LR-PRP),但在其他评分上两者无显著差异。
在OA治疗中,与HA相比,PRP在改善患者功能方面表现更好。两组在VAS和AE方面无显著差异,安全性相当。LP-PRP在功能恢复方面似乎优于LR-PRP,但在疼痛缓解方面两者似乎无显著差异。亚组分析中单次PRP和三次PRP之间无显著差异。