Serum biomarkers for the assessment of muscle damage in various surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies.

PURPOSE: Using serum biomarkers, this systematic review assessed soft tissue injury following different total hip arthroplasty surgical approaches. The purposes were to determine if there is any advantage between the standard and minimal invasive approaches, and to compare tissue damage of the respective surgical approaches using biomarkers such as creatine kinase, myoglobin, c-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, skeletal troponin and interleukins. METHOD: A search in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted in October 2021 with the use of PRISMA guidelines. Search items were ("biomarkers" OR "markers" OR "tissue damage" OR "muscle damage") AND "approach" AND ("total hip arthroplasty" OR "total hip replacement"). Inclusion criteria were prospective, randomized, controlled trials or prospective, comparative studies, comparing serum markers for muscle damage in two or more surgical approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty. Exclusion criteria were study protocols, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, studies in non-English language or without available full text, and studies not recording biomarkers of muscle damage. RESULTS: Initial search revealed 508 studies; after subtraction of duplicates, and exclusion criteria, 31 studies remained for analysis. No advantage between different approaches was found when evaluating biomarkers, and no specific biomarkers had a distinct role in tissue damage in total hip arthroplasty. Anterior and minimally invasive approaches were associated with lower values of soft tissue (creatine kinase) and inflammation (c-reactive protein) biomarkers compared to the standard approaches. CONCLUSION: Measurement of serum biomarkers after primary total hip arthroplasty for the estimation of tissue damage has unclear or little clinical value. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022303959.

Platelet-rich plasma injections for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic and comprehensive review.

A series of clinical trials focused on the use of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma (PRP) infusions for the treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) were published over the last few years. However, the role of PRP for CTS remains unclear. We performed a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers independently conducted the search using multiple databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science. These databases were searched using terms "platelet" AND "rich" AND "plasma" AND "carpal" AND "tunnel". To maximize the search, backward chaining of references from retrieved papers was also undertaken. From the initial 19 studies, only five met our eligibility criteria. These articles included one randomized controlled double-blind study, one randomized controlled single-blind study, one randomized controlled non-blind study, one case-control study, and one case report. The vast majority of the included studies supported that PRP infusion improved the clinical condition of the patients and that PRP infusion was beneficial for patients with mild-to-moderate CTS. Therefore, PRP seems to be an interesting alternative for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS which, still, has not been thoroughly investigated. However, despite the promising results of the present studies, PRP has to be further tested before we reach to a definite conclusion regarding its therapeutic value.

Similar effect of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma versus platelet-poor plasma injections for chronic plantar fasciitis.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting reports regarding the therapeutic effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus autologous whole-blood (platelet poor plasma, PPP) injections for plantar fasciitis. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a single ultrasound (US)-guided PRP versus PPP injection in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 36 patients were recruited with clinical and sonographic evidence of chronic (>6 months) plantar fasciitis, refractory to analgesics and physical therapy in a double-blinded, randomized, prospective study. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups with a sealed envelope method. Group A included 18 patients who underwent a single US-guided PRP injection and group B included another 18 patients who underwent PPP injection with the same technique. Follow-up was set at 3 and 6 months; no patient was lost to follow-up. Pain, function and satisfaction were assessed using visual analogue scales, and occurrence of complications. RESULTS: All scores statistically significantly improved for both groups from baseline at the 3- and 6-month follow-up evaluation, without, however, any statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to pain, function and satisfaction scores. Complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: A single US-guided PRP injection yields similar results with PPP injection in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Both treatments provide significant improvement at 3 and 6-month follow-up after the injection.