Ultrasound-guided injection of platelet-rich plasma for tendinopathies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated ultrasound (US)-guided injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as conservative treatment of tendinopathies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of US-guided PRP for tendinopathies. RESULTS: We found 33 RCT (2,025 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 8 in lateral epicondylitis, 5 in plantar fasciitis, 5 in Achilles tendinopathy, 7 in rotator cuff tendinopathy, 3 in patellar tendinopathy and 5 in carpal tunnel syndrome. PRP, given as a single injection (20 trials) or multiple injections (13 trials), was compared to US-guided injection of steroids, saline, autologous whole blood, local anesthetic, dry needling, prolotherapy, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, or with non-injective interventions. The outcomes more commonly reported included pain and functional measures, subgrouped as in the short-term (<3 months from the intervention), medium-term (3 to 6 months) or long-term (≥12 months). No clear between-group differences in these outcomes were observed in patients with lateral epicondylitis, plantar fasciitis, or Achilles, rotator cuff or patellar tendinopathy. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, visual analog scale scores for pain at 3 and 6 months and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire severity scores at 1, 3 and 6 months were significantly lower in PRP recipients than in controls. The certainty of evidence of all these comparisons was graded as low or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency. Pain at the injection site was more common among PRP recipients than among controls receiving other US-guided injections. DISCUSSION: In patients with tendinopathies, a trend towards pain reduction and functional improvement from baseline was observed after US-guided PRP injection, but in the majority of the comparisons, the effect size was comparable to that observed in control groups.

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma as conservative treatment in orthopaedics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in non-surgical orthopaedic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and SCOPUS. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. RESULTS: We found 36 randomised controlled trials (2,073 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 20 to 225). Twenty-eight studies included patients with lateral epicondylitis or plantar fasciitis. PRP was compared to local steroids injection (19 studies), saline injection (6 studies), autologous whole blood (4 studies), local anaesthetic injection (3 studies), dry needling injection (3 studies), and to other comparators (4 studies). Primary outcomes were pain and function scores, and adverse events. On average, it is unclear whether or not use of PRP compared to controls reduces pain scores and functional score at short- (up to 3 months) and medium- (4-6 months) term follow-up. The available evidence for all the comparisons was rated as very low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias in most of the selected studies. There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis, which documents the very marginal effectiveness of PRP compared to controls, does not support the use of PRP as conservative treatment in orthopaedics.