{"title":"富血小板血浆注射治疗髌骨肌腱病:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Apurba Barman, Mithilesh K Sinha, Jagannatha Sahoo, Debasish Jena, Vikas Patel, Suman Patel, Souvik Bhattacharjee, Debanjan Baral","doi":"10.1186/s43019-022-00151-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for clinical trials which compared PRP injection with other 'active treatment' interventions ('Non-PRP' injection and 'No-injection' treatments) or 'No-active treatment' interventions. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that had been published up to 15 November 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome, pain relief, was measured on a 'visual analog scale.' Secondary outcomes were knee functional activities and quality of life (QoL). The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight comparative studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Assessment of these studies revealed that there were no significant differences in pain relief, functional outcomes, and QoL in the short, medium, and long term between PRP injection and Non-PRP injection interventions. Similarly, comparison of PRP injection to the No-active treatment intervention showed no differences in short- and medium-term pain relief. However, when PRP injection was compared to the No-injection treatment intervention extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ECWT), the former was found to be more effective in terms of pain relief in the medium term (mean difference [MD] - 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.72 to - 0.28) and long term (MD - 1.70; 95% CI, - 2.90 to - 0.50) and functional outcomes in the medium term (MD 13.0; 95% CI 3.01-22.99) and long term (MD 13.70; 95% CI 4.62-22.78).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of pain relief and functional outcomes, the PRP injection did not provide significantly greater clinical benefit than Non-PRP injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. However, in comparison with ESWT, there was a significant benefit in favor of PRP injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":17886,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066802/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Apurba Barman, Mithilesh K Sinha, Jagannatha Sahoo, Debasish Jena, Vikas Patel, Suman Patel, Souvik Bhattacharjee, Debanjan Baral\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43019-022-00151-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for clinical trials which compared PRP injection with other 'active treatment' interventions ('Non-PRP' injection and 'No-injection' treatments) or 'No-active treatment' interventions. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that had been published up to 15 November 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome, pain relief, was measured on a 'visual analog scale.' Secondary outcomes were knee functional activities and quality of life (QoL). The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight comparative studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Assessment of these studies revealed that there were no significant differences in pain relief, functional outcomes, and QoL in the short, medium, and long term between PRP injection and Non-PRP injection interventions. Similarly, comparison of PRP injection to the No-active treatment intervention showed no differences in short- and medium-term pain relief. However, when PRP injection was compared to the No-injection treatment intervention extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ECWT), the former was found to be more effective in terms of pain relief in the medium term (mean difference [MD] - 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.72 to - 0.28) and long term (MD - 1.70; 95% CI, - 2.90 to - 0.50) and functional outcomes in the medium term (MD 13.0; 95% CI 3.01-22.99) and long term (MD 13.70; 95% CI 4.62-22.78).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of pain relief and functional outcomes, the PRP injection did not provide significantly greater clinical benefit than Non-PRP injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. However, in comparison with ESWT, there was a significant benefit in favor of PRP injection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery & Related Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9066802/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery & Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00151-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00151-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在评估自体富血小板血浆(PRP)注射治疗髌腱病的疗效:方法: 在 PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 数据库中搜索比较 PRP 注射与其他 "积极治疗 "干预("非 PRP "注射和 "无注射 "治疗)或 "无积极治疗 "干预的临床试验。荟萃分析纳入了截至 2021 年 11 月 15 日发表的随机和非随机临床试验。主要结果是疼痛缓解程度,采用 "视觉模拟量表 "进行测量。次要结果为膝关节功能活动和生活质量(QoL)。整个研究过程都遵循了 PRISMA 指南:荟萃分析确定了八项比较研究。对这些研究的评估结果显示,PRP 注射与非 PRP 注射干预在短期、中期和长期的疼痛缓解、功能结果和 QoL 方面没有显著差异。同样,将 PRP 注射与非主动治疗干预进行比较后发现,在短期和中期疼痛缓解方面没有差异。然而,当 PRP 注射与非注射治疗干预措施体外冲击波疗法(ECWT)进行比较时,发现前者在中期疼痛缓解方面更为有效(平均差 [MD] - 1.50; 95%置信区间[CI] - 2.72 to - 0.28)和长期(MD - 1.70; 95% CI, - 2.90 to - 0.50),以及中期(MD 13.0; 95% CI 3.01-22.99)和长期(MD 13.70; 95% CI 4.62-22.78)的功能结果:就疼痛缓解和功能结果而言,在治疗髌骨肌腱病时,PRP注射的临床疗效并不明显优于非PRP注射。不过,与 ESWT 相比,PRP 注射的疗效更明显。
Platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy.
Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for clinical trials which compared PRP injection with other 'active treatment' interventions ('Non-PRP' injection and 'No-injection' treatments) or 'No-active treatment' interventions. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that had been published up to 15 November 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome, pain relief, was measured on a 'visual analog scale.' Secondary outcomes were knee functional activities and quality of life (QoL). The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout the study.
Results: Eight comparative studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Assessment of these studies revealed that there were no significant differences in pain relief, functional outcomes, and QoL in the short, medium, and long term between PRP injection and Non-PRP injection interventions. Similarly, comparison of PRP injection to the No-active treatment intervention showed no differences in short- and medium-term pain relief. However, when PRP injection was compared to the No-injection treatment intervention extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ECWT), the former was found to be more effective in terms of pain relief in the medium term (mean difference [MD] - 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.72 to - 0.28) and long term (MD - 1.70; 95% CI, - 2.90 to - 0.50) and functional outcomes in the medium term (MD 13.0; 95% CI 3.01-22.99) and long term (MD 13.70; 95% CI 4.62-22.78).
Conclusions: In terms of pain relief and functional outcomes, the PRP injection did not provide significantly greater clinical benefit than Non-PRP injections in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. However, in comparison with ESWT, there was a significant benefit in favor of PRP injection.