Cao Yunqi, Deng Xiaolei, Hou Siyi, Wang Jian, Wei Bo, Hu Liyou, Hou Decai
Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongshan Road 79, Shenyang, 110032, China.
Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beiling Street 33, Shenyang, 110032, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Apr 9;20(1):354. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05755-7.
The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with core decompression (CD)-enhanced bone grafting for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head remains controversial. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of PRP combined with CD-enhanced bone grafting for treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head and to compare this method with CD-combined bone grafting as a way to provide theoretical bases for future clinical treatments and research.
This study aimed to assess the improved efficacy and safety of core decompression combined with platelet-rich plasma-enhanced bone grafting for osteonecrosis of the femoral head compared to core decompression-enhanced bone grafting.
We systematically searched several databases for randomised controlled trials comparing bone graft and core decompression with or without PRP, including 16 studies involving 999 subjects and 1139 hip cases. This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items (PRISMA) guidelines. The study is registered with PROSPERO under code CRD42024557968.
16 articles involving 999 patients (1139 hips) were included in this study. Pooled analyses demonstrated that when core decompression-enhanced bone grafting was combined with PRP, the Harris hip score (mean difference [MD]: 5.26, 95% Cl:4.81-5.71; P < 0.00001), visual analog scale (MD: -0.74, 95% Cl:-0.99 - -0.49; P < 0.00001) and reduction in the need for THA: (risk ratio [RR]: 0.29; 95% Cl:0.16-0.53; P < 0.0001) were superior to core decompression-enhanced bone grafting alone. Furthermore, a pooled analysis confirmed the safety of PRP [RR:0.33; 95% Cl:0.13-0.83; P = 0.02]. All these results were statistically significant.
Compared to CD-enhanced bone grafting, the combination of PRP appears to yield superior therapeutic outcomes in restoring hip function, alleviating pain, preventing THA, and ensuring postoperative safety. Moreover, we require a higher level of randomised controlled trials to evaluate its efficacy and safety.
富血小板血浆(PRP)联合髓芯减压(CD)增强骨移植治疗股骨头坏死的疗效和安全性仍存在争议。本研究旨在对PRP联合CD增强骨移植治疗股骨头坏死的疗效和安全性进行系统评价和荟萃分析,并将该方法与单纯CD联合骨移植进行比较,为未来的临床治疗和研究提供理论依据。
本研究旨在评估与单纯髓芯减压增强骨移植相比,髓芯减压联合富血小板血浆增强骨移植治疗股骨头坏死的疗效和安全性是否有所提高。
我们系统检索了多个数据库,以查找比较骨移植和髓芯减压联合或不联合PRP的随机对照试验,共纳入16项研究,涉及999名受试者和1139例髋关节病例。本荟萃分析遵循《系统评价和荟萃分析优先报告条目》(PRISMA)指南。该研究已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册,注册号为CRD42024557968。
本研究纳入了16篇涉及999例患者(1139个髋关节)的文章。汇总分析表明,当髓芯减压增强骨移植联合PRP时,Harris髋关节评分(平均差值[MD]:5.26,95%置信区间[CI]:4.81-5.71;P<0.00001)、视觉模拟评分(MD:-0.74,95%CI:-0.99--0.49;P<0.00001)以及全髋关节置换术(THA)需求的降低(风险比[RR]:0.29;95%CI:0.16-0.53;P<0.0001)均优于单纯髓芯减压增强骨移植。此外,汇总分析证实了PRP的安全性[RR:0.33;95%CI:0.13-0.83;P=0.02]。所有这些结果均具有统计学意义。
与单纯CD增强骨移植相比,PRP联合应用在恢复髋关节功能、减轻疼痛、预防THA以及确保术后安全方面似乎具有更好的治疗效果。此外,我们需要更高质量的随机对照试验来评估其疗效和安全性。