RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is a cohort of patients in whom hip preservation surgery is not indicated, because they have developed signs of early osteoarthritis (OA), and nor can they have a hip replacement, as they are too early in the disease process. Management of this cohort of patients is not standardised and both pharmacological and nonpharmacological measures are utilised to reduce pain. Interventions available for early OA include intra-articular injections of steroids, viscosupplementation and more recently platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, the use of PRP in hip OA has not yet been studied systematically. PURPOSE: To assess intra-articular PRP as a therapeutic intervention for hip OA, including the duration of efficacy, influence of dose and composition of PRP, and the incidence of adverse effects. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed literature searches on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, COCHRANE, and SCOPUS databases, and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the methodological index for non-randomized studies instrument, with an additional assessment for randomized controlled trials with the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. This is the first study to concisely collate the available data on the use of PRP in hip OA. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the analysis, with data from a total of 331 patients. PRP significantly reduced pain compared with the baseline at multiple time points, with the greatest effect at the 1- to 2-month follow-up, but PRP significantly improved function only at the 1- to 2-month follow-up. A significantly larger reduction in pain was achieved with a single injection of PRP compared with multiple injections, a total injected dose of PRP <15 mL compared with ≥15 mL, and use of a leukocyte-poor PRP preparation compared with leukocyte-rich PRP. There were no lasting adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Low- and moderate-quality evidence suggests that PRP reduces pain and improves function at the end-point follow-up of studies compared with the baseline. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that a larger reduction in pain is achieved with a single injection of PRP compared with multiple injections, and low-quality evidence attributes a larger reduction of pain with a total injected dose of PRP <15 mL compared with ≥15 mL and using leukocyte-poor PRP compared with leukocyte-rich PRP.