关节内透明质酸与富血小板血浆治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的比较:系统综述。

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-03-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.94236
Gian Ivander, Yovita Anggono
{"title":"关节内透明质酸与富血小板血浆治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的比较:系统综述。","authors":"Gian Ivander, Yovita Anggono","doi":"10.52965/001c.94236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the most common chronic degenerative condition in an older population, accounts for many disabilities around the world. One of the most popular treatments is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prior studies have found that both HA and PRP had a therapeutic effect on KOA. This study aims to perform a systematic review regarding whether PRP is superior to HA for KOA.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for prospective randomized control trials (pRCTs) in three international databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect from 2019-2022. Two researchers independently searched the reviews, extracted, and cross-checked the data. The disparity when choosing the literature was resolved by discussion. The modified Jadad was scale used to assess the quality of the included studies. Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool (RoB-2) was used for determininzg risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty three studies were eligible for inclusion. Four pRCT with the highest Jadad score were selected as best evidence. Risk of bias assesment concluded two studies having a low risk of bias, one is high risk of bias, and the other possesses some concerns.. Three studies found no difference in patient-reported outcomes between PRP and HA group and one study concluded that PRP is more effective than HA in treating KOA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intra-articular injections of PRP and HA are effective interventions for KOA. However, there is not enough evidence of PRP superiority over HA.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"16 ","pages":"94236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10908594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"a comparison of intra-articular hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Gian Ivander, Yovita Anggono\",\"doi\":\"10.52965/001c.94236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the most common chronic degenerative condition in an older population, accounts for many disabilities around the world. One of the most popular treatments is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prior studies have found that both HA and PRP had a therapeutic effect on KOA. This study aims to perform a systematic review regarding whether PRP is superior to HA for KOA.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for prospective randomized control trials (pRCTs) in three international databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect from 2019-2022. Two researchers independently searched the reviews, extracted, and cross-checked the data. The disparity when choosing the literature was resolved by discussion. The modified Jadad was scale used to assess the quality of the included studies. Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool (RoB-2) was used for determininzg risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty three studies were eligible for inclusion. Four pRCT with the highest Jadad score were selected as best evidence. Risk of bias assesment concluded two studies having a low risk of bias, one is high risk of bias, and the other possesses some concerns.. Three studies found no difference in patient-reported outcomes between PRP and HA group and one study concluded that PRP is more effective than HA in treating KOA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intra-articular injections of PRP and HA are effective interventions for KOA. However, there is not enough evidence of PRP superiority over HA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopedic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"94236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10908594/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopedic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.94236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.94236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:膝关节骨关节炎(KOA)是老年人群中最常见的慢性退行性疾病,在全世界造成了许多残疾。最流行的治疗方法之一是在关节内注射透明质酸(HA)和富血小板血浆(PRP):之前的研究发现,HA 和 PRP 对 KOA 均有治疗效果。本研究旨在对 PRP 对 KOA 的治疗效果是否优于 HA 进行系统性回顾:2019-2022年,我们在PubMed、Google Scholar和ScienceDirect三个国际数据库中使用系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南对前瞻性随机对照试验(pRCT)进行了全面的文献检索。两名研究人员独立检索综述、提取数据并进行交叉核对。在选择文献时出现的分歧通过讨论解决。采用改良 Jadad 量表评估纳入研究的质量。科克伦偏倚风险2工具(RoB-2)用于确定偏倚风险:共有 23 项研究符合纳入条件。结果:23 项研究符合纳入条件,4 项 Jadad 评分最高的研究被选为最佳证据。偏倚风险评估结果显示,两项研究的偏倚风险较低,一项研究的偏倚风险较高,另一项研究存在一些问题。三项研究发现 PRP 组和 HA 组在患者报告的结果方面没有差异,一项研究认为 PRP 在治疗 KOA 方面比 HA 更有效:结论:PRP 和 HA 的关节内注射是治疗 KOA 的有效干预措施。结论:PRP 和 HA 关节内注射是治疗 KOA 的有效干预措施,但没有足够的证据表明 PRP 优于 HA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
a comparison of intra-articular hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the most common chronic degenerative condition in an older population, accounts for many disabilities around the world. One of the most popular treatments is intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

Objective: Prior studies have found that both HA and PRP had a therapeutic effect on KOA. This study aims to perform a systematic review regarding whether PRP is superior to HA for KOA.

Method: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for prospective randomized control trials (pRCTs) in three international databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect from 2019-2022. Two researchers independently searched the reviews, extracted, and cross-checked the data. The disparity when choosing the literature was resolved by discussion. The modified Jadad was scale used to assess the quality of the included studies. Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool (RoB-2) was used for determininzg risk of bias.

Results: Twenty three studies were eligible for inclusion. Four pRCT with the highest Jadad score were selected as best evidence. Risk of bias assesment concluded two studies having a low risk of bias, one is high risk of bias, and the other possesses some concerns.. Three studies found no difference in patient-reported outcomes between PRP and HA group and one study concluded that PRP is more effective than HA in treating KOA.

Conclusion: Intra-articular injections of PRP and HA are effective interventions for KOA. However, there is not enough evidence of PRP superiority over HA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
期刊最新文献
Haemodynamics, side effects and safety of the combination of continuous femoral nerve block and intravenous parecoxib for pain management after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A pilot study. Practice Patterns of Physicians who Perform Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections. Lateral ligament reconstruction and additive medial ligament reconstruction in chronic ankle instability: a retrospective study. Anesthetic Management of a Patient with Renal Cell Carcinoma-Associated Venous Thrombosis and Massive Transfusion. Comparative assessment of bone cement implantation syndrome in cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty: impact in patients with and without preexisting heart disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1