Department of Trauma Sports Orthopedics, Guigang City People's Hospital, Zhongshan Middle Road 1, Gangbei district, Guigang, Guangxi, 537100, PR China.
Jieyang Medical Research Center, Jieyang People's Hospital, Tianfu Road 107, Rongcheng district, Jieyang City, Guangdong, 522000, PR China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 May 26;24(1):423. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06443-5.
Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) possesses a harmful influence on quality of life. Numerous conservative management modalities with varying success have been proposed for patients with GTPS. However, it is not clear which treatment is more effective for reducing pain. The purpose of this Bayesian analysis was to assess the current evidence for the effectiveness of conservative treatments on improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scoring of GTPS and to determine the most effective treatment protocol.
A comprehensive study search was performed from inception until July 18, 2022, via the electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for potential research. The risk of bias assessment for the included studies was independently performed based on the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian analysis was conducted by using ADDIS software (v1.16.5). The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to perform the traditional pairwise meta-analysis.
Eight full-text articles with a total of 596 patients with GTPS were included in the analysis. In comparing ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma application (PRP-U) to ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection (CSI-U), patients who received PRP therapy experienced reduced pain as the VAS decreased significantly (MD, -5.21; 95% CI, -6.24 to -3.64). VAS score in group of extracorporeal shockwave treatment (ESWT) was significant improved than that in exercise (EX) group (MD, -3.17; 95% CI, -4.13 to -2.15). There were no statistically significantly different VAS scores between the CSI-U group and the CSI under landmark (CSI-B) group. The treatment efficacy rankings of the different treatments on improving VAS scores showed that the most likely efficacious treatment was PRP-U (99%) followed by ESWT (81%), CIS-U (58%), usual care (48%), CIS-B (54%), and EX (84%).
Bayesian analysis revealed that PRP injection and ESWT are relatively safe and effective in the treatment of GTPS. More multicenter high-quality randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes are still needed in the future to provide further evidence.
大转子疼痛综合征(GTPS)对生活质量有不良影响。针对 GTPS 患者,已经提出了许多不同成功率的保守治疗方法。然而,哪种治疗方法更有效来减轻疼痛尚不清楚。本贝叶斯分析的目的是评估保守治疗改善 GTPS 视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分的现有证据,并确定最有效的治疗方案。
通过电子数据库 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 从成立到 2022 年 7 月 18 日全面检索潜在研究,对纳入的研究进行独立的偏倚风险评估,基于 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具。采用 ADDIS 软件(v1.16.5)进行贝叶斯分析。采用 DerSimonian-Laird 随机效应模型进行传统的两两荟萃分析。
共纳入 8 篇全文文献,共 596 例 GTPS 患者。与超声引导下皮质类固醇注射(CSI-U)相比,接受 PRP 治疗的患者疼痛减轻,VAS 明显下降(MD,-5.21;95%CI,-6.24 至-3.64)。体外冲击波治疗(ESWT)组的 VAS 评分明显优于运动(EX)组(MD,-3.17;95%CI,-4.13 至-2.15)。CSI-U 组与 CSI 地标下(CSI-B)组的 VAS 评分无统计学差异。不同治疗方法改善 VAS 评分的疗效排名显示,最有效的治疗方法可能是 PRP-U(99%),其次是 ESWT(81%)、CSI-U(58%)、常规治疗(48%)、CSI-B(54%)和 EX(84%)。
贝叶斯分析表明,PRP 注射和 ESWT 治疗 GTPS 较为安全有效。未来仍需要更多多中心、高质量、大样本量的随机临床试验,以提供进一步的证据。