Arora Vaneet, Sharma Manmohan, Bishnoi Sandeep, Mahipal Vakul, Sandhu Angad S, Khanna Rajat, Aggarwal Tarun, Yadav Krishnadev S, Jain Gautam, Sharma Shubham M
Orthopaedics, Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College & Research Centre, Moradabad, IND.
Community Medicine, Jaipur National University Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jaipur, IND.
Cureus. 2023 May 29;15(5):e39625. doi: 10.7759/cureus.39625. eCollection 2023 May.
Introduction Osteoarthritis (OA) in humans is an inevitable consequence of ageing and can now be effectively managed with advancements in knowledge and understanding of the disease. The major concern in a patient suffering from this disease is the functional impairment caused by the pain. The goals in the management of OA knee include symptom relief with preservation of joint function. Despite there being a number of studies on the effectiveness of PRP and CS for knee OA, most of them have focused on patient-reported functional outcomes only. Hence, we conducted this study to assess the potential and effectiveness of a single intra-articular injection of PRP and CS in the functional improvement of knee OA patients using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and to establish the bio-modulatory effects of intra-articular PRP and CS in knee OA patients by estimating the serum matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) levels. Methodology Patients attending the outpatient department with complaints of knee pain were screened. Standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the knees were obtained. Patients with Kellgren and Lawrence (K-L) grades II and III were enrolled in our study. A total of 96 patients were included in the study after fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups (PRP and CS) by randomisation. There were 48 each in the PRP and CS groups, out of which nine were lost to follow-up, two from the PRP group and seven from the CS group. A total of 87 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were finally enrolled in the study and followed up for nine months after a single intra-articular injection. The biochemical assessment of serum levels of MMP-3 was done at baseline and in the ninth month. Accordingly, patients in the PRP group were injected with freshly prepared PRP (3 ml) within two hours of preparation, whereas those in the CS received 80 mg of methylprednisolone acetate. VAS and WOMAC were measured at baseline, and then in the first, third, sixth, and ninth month post-injection follow-ups. MMP-3 level was estimated before the injection and at the ninth-month post-injection follow-up. Data collected for both groups were analysed and compared with each other. Conclusion PRP is unquestionably a better option than CS in OA of the knee based on boosting functional activity, lowering stiffness, and reducing pain, all three of which are denoted by the WOMAC and VAS scores as the effect of PRP lasts longer than CS injections for the aforesaid issues. We could not find any significant change in levels of MMP3 post PRP and CS injections, which signifies that these two modalities do not have any effect in either preventing cartilage degeneration or promoting cartilage regeneration. Our findings have shown that PRP injections are safe, minimally invasive, and effective treatment modalities for OA knee.
引言 人类骨关节炎(OA)是衰老的必然结果,随着对该疾病认识的不断进步,目前已能得到有效管理。患有这种疾病的患者主要担忧的是疼痛导致的功能障碍。膝骨关节炎管理的目标包括缓解症状并保留关节功能。尽管有多项关于富血小板血浆(PRP)和皮质类固醇(CS)治疗膝骨关节炎有效性的研究,但其中大多数仅关注患者报告的功能结局。因此,我们开展了这项研究,使用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)和视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估单次关节腔内注射PRP和CS对膝骨关节炎患者功能改善的潜力和有效性,并通过估计血清基质金属蛋白酶-3(MMP-3)水平来确定关节腔内PRP和CS对膝骨关节炎患者的生物调节作用。
方法 对到门诊就诊并主诉膝关节疼痛的患者进行筛查。获取膝关节站立位前后位和侧位X线片。纳入Kellgren和Lawrence(K-L)分级为II级和III级的患者。在满足纳入和排除标准后,共有96例患者纳入本研究。通过随机分组将患者分为两组(PRP组和CS组)。PRP组和CS组各有48例患者,其中9例失访,PRP组2例,CS组7例。最终共有87例符合纳入标准的患者纳入本研究,并在单次关节腔内注射后随访9个月。在基线期和第9个月进行血清MMP-3水平的生化评估。相应地,PRP组患者在制备后两小时内注射新鲜制备的PRP(3 ml),而CS组患者接受80 mg醋酸甲基泼尼松龙。在基线期以及注射后第1、3、6和9个月的随访中测量VAS和WOMAC。在注射前和注射后第9个月的随访中估计MMP-3水平。对两组收集的数据进行分析并相互比较。
结论 基于增强功能活动、降低僵硬程度和减轻疼痛,PRP在膝骨关节炎治疗中无疑是比CS更好的选择,WOMAC和VAS评分显示了这一点,因为PRP对上述问题的效果比CS注射持续时间更长。我们未发现PRP和CS注射后MMP3水平有任何显著变化,这表明这两种方式在预防软骨退变或促进软骨再生方面均无任何作用。我们的研究结果表明,PRP注射是治疗膝骨关节炎安全、微创且有效的治疗方式。