scholarly journals AB132. Therapeutic efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injection compared to corticosteroid injection in plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. AB132-AB132
Author(s):  
Wafi Abeedi Mohammed ◽  
Salma Farah ◽  
Mujtaba Nassiri ◽  
James McKenna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plasma Injection

scholarly journals A comparative study of functional outcome between platelet rich plasma injection versus steroid infiltration in plantar fasciitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 393
Author(s):  
Harpreet Singh ◽  
Malay P. Gandhi ◽  
Aliasgar J. Rampurwala ◽  
Tej S. Rudani
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Injection Group ◽  
Plasma Injection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Plantar fasciitis (PF) is considered as degenerative tendinopathies. Repeated micro trauma is the major etiology of these diseases. Autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections are becoming more popular in the treatment of enthesopathies like PF. The growth factors in PRP cause tissue healing. We compared the result of injecting intra-lesional autologous PRP injections versus steroid infiltration in chronic PF.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> A prospective, interventional and analytic comparative study was done and 81 patients (120 heels) were included in this study and were followed up for 6 months. We assessed the outcome of each patient using visual analog score (VAS) and foot and ankle disability index (FADI) on follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months. <strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> In our study, female preponderance was seen. Left side was more common as compared to right side. Unilateral PF is more common than bilateral. The difference with in the individual group at baseline and at 1,3 and 6 months was statistically highly significant in terms of VAS and FADI (p=0.0001) But the difference in the between the two groups was insignificant for VAS and FADI at 1, 3 and 6 months.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> In our study, as there is no significant difference in VAS and FADI score between corticosteroid injection group and PRP injection group at 1, 3 and 6 months follow up. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that both are equally effective in PF. But as PRP injection comes out to be more time consuming and more costly, corticosteroid seems to be more efficient, cost and time wise. Hence, the latter should be a better choice.      </p>

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Elbow Epicondylitis and Plantar Fasciitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 2572-2585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Huang ◽  
Grey Giddins ◽  
Li-dong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Large Effect Size ◽  
Short Term

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), as a promising alternative to traditional corticosteroid (CS), is now increasingly used in the treatment of elbow epicondylitis (EE) and plantar fasciitis (PF). To date, however, the synthesis of information on the clinical efficacy of PRP versus CS is limited with divergent conclusions. Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy of PRP and CS injections in reducing pain and improving function in EE and PF. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Online databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for prospective studies evaluating PRP versus CS injections for EE or PF. Independent reviewers undertook searches, screening, and risk-of-bias appraisals. The primary outcomes of interest were pain and function in both the short term (1-3 months) and the long term (≥6 months). Results: Twenty trials with 1268 participants were included. For EE, PRP provides a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in pain, with a very large effect size of −1.3 (95% CI, −1.9 to −0.7) when compared with CS, but the evidence level was low. For EE, there was moderate evidence that CS provides a statistically meaningful improvement in pain in the short term, with a medium effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.08-1.03) as compared with PRP; this improvement might not be clinically significant. For PF, there was low evidence that PRP provides a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in function (American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society score), with a very large effect size of 1.94 (95% CI, 0.61-3.28). There were no significant differences between the groups in improvement in function in EE and pain and short-term function in PF, but the quality of the evidence was low. Conclusion: The use of PRP yields statistically and clinically better improvement in long-term pain than does CS in the treatment of EE. The use of PRP yields statistically and clinically better long-term functional improvement than that of CS in the treatment of PF.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652093729
Author(s):  
Erik Hohmann ◽  
Kevin Tetsworth ◽  
Vaida Glatt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
American Orthopaedic ◽  
Corticosteroid Injections

Background: Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain. Corticosteroid injections are commonly used and proven to be effective, and lately platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used with mixed results. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing intralesional injections of PRP and steroid infiltration. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar including all level 1 and 2 studies from 2010 to 2019 was perfomed. American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and visual analog scale for pain scores were used as outcome variables. Publication bias and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tools. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system was used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. Heterogeneity was assessed with χ2 and I2 statistics. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the analysis. Nine studies had a high risk of bias. There was 1 study with high quality, 9 with moderate, 2 studies with low, and 3 with very low quality. The pooled estimate for the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score demonstrated nonsignificant differences at 1 month ( P = .4) and 3 months ( P = .076). At 6 months ( P = .009) and 12 months ( P = .009), it indicated significant differences in favor of PRP. The pooled estimate for visual analog scale demonstrated nonsignificant differences at 1 month ( P = .653). At 3 months ( P = .0001), 6 months ( P = .002), and 12 months ( P = .019), it yielded significant differences in favor of PRP. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PRP is superior to corticosteroid injections for pain control at 3 months and lasts up to 1 year. In the short term, there is no advantage of corticosteroid infiltration. However, the low study quality, high risk of bias, and different protocols for PRP preparation reduce the internal and external validity of these findings, and these results must be viewed with caution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document