Boffa Angelo, Moraca Giacomo, Sangiorgio Alessandro, Di Martino Alessandro, Bensa Alessandro, Filardo Giuseppe
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Neuromotorie, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Knee. 2025 Aug;55:104-111. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2025.03.010. Epub 2025 Apr 24.
Corticosteroid (CS) injections are often recommended by international societies for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, but platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown higher safety and efficacy in comparative analyses. Despite this, PRP use is often not endorsed by scientific societies due to perceived insufficient body of evidence. This study aims to quantify clinical data documenting CS and PRP intra-articular injections for knee OA.
A systematic review of the literature was conducted on CS and PRP injections for knee OA. The search, performed in March 2024, used PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Data collected included publication trends, number of articles, patients evaluated, and study designs documenting CS or PRP injections.
Of 16,979 records, 356 studies were analyzed, covering 24,435 knee OA patients. Both treatments showed an increasing publication trend, with PRP surpassing CS in 2020. The analysis included 9,322 CS patients and 15,113 PRP patients. Among CS studies, there were 103 RCTs with 5,478 patients, 18 comparative studies with 1,095 patients, and 31 case series with 2,749 patients. Among PRP studies, there were 119 RCTs with 6,028 patients, 33 comparative studies with 2,011 patients, and 72 case series with 7,074 patients.
PRP injections for knee OA have been documented in more studies and in larger patient numbers compared with CS injections. The higher number of high-level trials for PRP, combined with the lower safety and efficacy documented for CS by previous meta-analyses directly comparing the two products, strongly suggests reconsidering current guidelines that favor CS, highlighting PRP's body of evidence and the potential role in the effective and safe treatment of knee OA.
国际社会通常推荐使用皮质类固醇(CS)注射治疗膝关节骨关节炎(OA),但在比较分析中,富血小板血浆(PRP)显示出更高的安全性和疗效。尽管如此,由于认为证据不足,科学协会通常不认可使用PRP。本研究旨在量化记录CS和PRP关节内注射治疗膝关节OA的临床数据。
对关于CS和PRP注射治疗膝关节OA的文献进行系统综述。按照PRISMA和Cochrane指南,于2024年3月在PubMed、Cochrane和科学网数据库进行检索。收集的数据包括发表趋势、文章数量、评估的患者数量以及记录CS或PRP注射的研究设计。
在16979条记录中,分析了356项研究,涵盖24435例膝关节OA患者。两种治疗方法的发表趋势均呈上升趋势,PRP在2020年超过了CS。分析包括9322例CS患者和15113例PRP患者。在CS研究中,有103项随机对照试验(RCT),涉及5478例患者;18项比较研究,涉及1095例患者;31项病例系列研究,涉及2749例患者。在PRP研究中,有119项RCT,涉及6028例患者;33项比较研究,涉及2011例患者;72项病例系列研究,涉及7074例患者。
与CS注射相比,记录PRP注射治疗膝关节OA的研究更多,涉及的患者数量也更多。PRP的高级别试验数量更多,再加上先前直接比较这两种产品的荟萃分析记录的CS安全性和疗效较低,强烈建议重新考虑当前倾向于CS的指南,突出PRP的证据以及其在膝关节OA有效和安全治疗中的潜在作用。