Platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of frozen shoulder: A randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (08) ◽  
pp. 366-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junhong Lin

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-882
Author(s):  
Bart W. Oudelaar ◽  
Rianne Huis In ‘t Veld ◽  
Edwin M. Ooms ◽  
Relinde Schepers-Bok ◽  
Rob G.H.H. Nelissen ◽  
...  

Background: Needle aspiration of calcific deposits (NACD) is a frequently used treatment for rotator cuff calcific tendinitis (RCCT). However, a substantial number of patients experience recurrent or persisting shoulder symptoms after NACD. Purpose: To compare the effects of adjuvant application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) after NACD (NACP+PRP) with those of conventional NACD with corticosteroids (NACD+corticosteroids) on pain, shoulder function, and quality of life (QoL). Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: In a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 80 adults with symptomatic RCCT were randomly allocated to receive NACD+corticosteroids or NACD+PRP. Pain, shoulder function, and QoL were assessed at baseline; 6 weeks; and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment using a numeric rating scale for pain (NRS); the Constant-Murley score (CMS); the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH); the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS); and the EuroQol 5-dimension scale (EQ-5D). Additionally, resorption of calcific deposits and the integrity of rotator cuff tendons were assessed by using standard radiographs and ultrasound examination, respectively. The results were analyzed using noninferiority analysis for NRS scores and a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Eighty patients were included (48 female; mean age, 49 ± 6 years; 41 patients in the NACD+PRP group). Both groups showed improvement of clinical scores at the 2-year follow-up ( P < .001 for all clinical scores). NACD+PRP was found to be noninferior to NACD+corticosteroids with regard to the mean decrease of NRS scores (4.34 vs 3.56; P = .003). Mixed-model analysis showed a significant difference in favor of NACD+PRP (CMS, P < .001; DASH, P = .002; OSS, P = .010; EQ-5D, P < .001). However, clinically relevant differences in favor of NACD+PRP were only seen at the 6-month follow-up for NRS and CMS scores, whereas at the 6-week follow-up a clinically relevant difference in favor of NACD+corticosteroids was found for all clinical scores except for the NRS. Full resorption of calcific deposits was present in 84% of the NACD+PRP group compared with 66% in the NACD+corticosteroids group ( P = .081). In the NACD+PRP group, 10 (24%) patients required a second NACD procedure compared with 19 (49%) patients in the NACD+corticosteroids group ( P = .036). Six complications, of which 5 were frozen shoulders, occurred in the NACD+PRP group compared with 1 complication in the NACD+corticosteroids group ( P = .11). Conclusion: NACD+PRP resulted in worse clinical scores at the 6-week follow-up but better clinical scores at the 6-month follow-up compared with NACD+corticosteroids. At the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, the results were comparable between groups. Furthermore, PRP seemed to reduce the need for additional treatments but was associated with more complications. In conclusion, NACD+corticosteroids had a favorable early effect on pain and function combined with low comorbidity. Thus, it remains the treatment of choice for patients with RCCT. Registration: NCT02173743 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1130-1137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Fitzpatrick ◽  
Max K. Bulsara ◽  
John O’Donnell ◽  
Ming Hao Zheng

Background: A previously published trial showed that patients with chronic gluteal tendinopathy achieved greater clinical improvement at 12 weeks when treated with a single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection than those treated with a single corticosteroid injection (CSI). Purpose: This follow-up study was conducted to determine whether there would be a sustained long-term difference in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) at 2 years for a leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) injection in the treatment of chronic gluteal tendinopathy. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: This trial included 80 patients randomized 1:1 to receive LR-PRP or CSI intratendinously under ultrasound guidance. Patients had a mean age of 60 years, a 9:1 ratio of women to men, a mean body mass index of 27, and a mean length of symptoms >15 months. No patients had full-thickness tears of the gluteal tendons. An open-labeled extension allowed patients to receive crossover treatment after 3 months. The main outcome measure was the mHHS. Results: The mean mHHS improved significantly at 12 weeks in the PRP group (74.05; SD, 13.92) as compared with the CSI group (67.13; SD, 16.04) ( P = .048). At 24 weeks, the LR-PRP group (77.60; SD, 11.88) improved further than the CSI group (65.72; SD, 15.28; P = .0003). Twenty-seven patients were deemed to have failed the CSI treatment at 16 to 24 weeks, with an exit score of 59.22 (SD, 11.54), and then had treatment with LR-PRP. The crossover group improved with the LR-PRP: from 59.22 (SD, 11.22) at baseline to 75.55 (SD, 16.05) at 12 weeks, 77.69 (SD, 15.30) at 24 weeks, and 77.53 (SD, 14.54) at 104 weeks. The LR-PRP group retained 38 of 39 patients to 52 weeks and continued to improve. Their baseline scores of 53.77 (SD, 12.08) improved to 82.59 (SD, 9.71) at 104 weeks ( P < .0001). Conclusion: Among patients with chronic gluteal tendinopathy and a length of symptoms >15 months, a single intratendinous LR-PRP injection performed under ultrasound guidance results in greater improvement in pain and function than a single CSI. The improvement after LR-PRP injection is sustained at 2 years, whereas the improvement from a CSI is maximal at 6 weeks and not maintained beyond 24 weeks. Registration: ACTRN12613000677707 (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials identifier).


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Di Martino ◽  
Berardo Di Matteo ◽  
Tiziana Papio ◽  
Francesco Tentoni ◽  
Filippo Selleri ◽  
...  

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have been proposed as a new conservative option for knee degeneration to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention. Although the current literature provides some evidence on the benefits of this technique compared with viscosupplementation, no studies have been performed to compare their long-term effects. Purpose: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes provided by intra-articular injections of either PRP or hyaluronic acid (HA) to treat knee degenerative disease. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients with a history of chronic symptomatic knee degenerative changes and osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-3) were enrolled: 192 patients were randomized to undergo 3 blinded weekly intra-articular injections of either PRP or HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated before the injection and then at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months and a mean of 64.3 months (SD, 7.8 months) of follow-up. Evaluation was based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective (main outcome), EuroQol visual analog scale, and Tegner scores; 167 patients reached the final evaluation. Results: Both treatments were effective in improving knee functional status and symptoms over time: Mean ± SD IKDC subjective score improved significantly for both PRP and HA groups ( P < .0005) and remained stable over time up to 24 months (from 53.3 ± 14.3 to 67.3 ± 18.1 and from 50.3 ± 13.2 to 62.1 ± 20.8 for PRP and HA groups, respectively). At final evaluation, a significant IKDC reduction was observed in both treatment groups, with the PRP group still presenting significantly higher values compared with baseline: PRP 60.5 ± 19.0 ( P < .001 vs baseline), HA 55.7 ± 18.8 (not significant vs baseline). A comparative analysis showed no significant intergroup difference in any of the clinical scores at any follow-up point. The median duration of patient subjective perception of symptomatic relief was 9 months for HA and 12 months for PRP (not significant). The only significant difference was observed in the rate of reintervention at 24 months, which was significantly lower in the PRP group (22.6% vs 37.1%, P = .036). Conclusion: Both treatments were effective in improving knee functional status and symptoms over time. PRP did not provide an overall superior clinical improvement compared with HA in terms of either symptomatic-functional improvement at different follow-up points or effect duration. Registration: NCT01670578 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document