RESUMO
Background/Objectives: Obesity is a common comorbidity in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) injection therapy may mitigate KOA. To further clarify potential patient selection for PRP injection therapy, we compared the outcomes in patients with different body mass index (BMI). Methods: A total of 91 patients with mild to moderate KOA were treated with three intra-articular PRP injections at 10 to 14-day intervals. Range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were documented before and after the injections at 15 days, 6 months, 12 months, and at the last follow-up. Outcomes were compared between patients with a BMI over 30 kg/m2 (obese, n = 34) and under 30 kg/m2 (non-obese, n = 57). Results: Significant difference during the follow-up was detected in WOMAC score at the last follow-up favouring BMI under 30 group [17.8 ± 18.8 versus 10.5 ± 11.7, p = 0.023]. The odds ratio (OR) in BMI over 30 kg/m2 group for total knee arthroplasty was 3.5 (95% CI 0.3-40.1, p = 0.553), and OR for any arthroplasty was 7.5 (95% CI 0.8-69.8, p = 0.085) compared to non-obese patients. Conclusions: Obese patients benefitted from PRP injections in KOA but there is a minimal difference favouring non-obese patients in symptom alleviation in follow-up stages after 12 months. The risk of arthroplasty is higher for obese KOA patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Given the complications involved in corticosteroid (CS) injections, subacromial platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections may provide a valid alternative to CS in the treatment of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a total of 98 patients affected by RC tendinopathy who were treated with either subacromial injection of PRP or CS. The PRP group received three injections of autologous PRP at 2 weeks interval, and the CS group received one injection of CS. The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) was the primary outcome measure, while the secondary outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), and need for cuff repair surgery, which were analyzed at intervals of 6, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in the analysis (PRP, n=35; CS, n=40). The mean follow-up for PRP was 21.1±8.7 months and for CS was 33.6±16.3 months (p<0.001). Both groups showed improvement in WORC, VAS, and ROM. No significant differences were detected between the two groups in any of the primary (WORC) or secondary outcomes over 6, 12, and 18 months (all p>0.05). No adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments improved patient symptoms, but neither resulted in a significantly better outcome in this series of patients. PRP can be a safe and feasible alternative to CS, even at long-term follow-up, to reduce local and systemic effects involved with CS injections.
RESUMO
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections may alleviate symptoms of chronic medial or lateral epicondylitis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 55 patients with chronic ME or LE who had undergone at least 6 months of any conservative treatment before intervention. The patients were divided into two groups: the PRP group (n = 25), who received a single injection of autologous PRP to the medial or lateral epicondyle, and the PT group (n = 30), who continued with PT and pain medication. The primary outcome measures were pain and functional outcomes measured in terms of the following: Patient Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), which were detected at preintervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included complications and the need for any surgery at follow-up. Results: Primary outcome measurements showed significantly better results favoring the PRP group (6-month PRTEE total 43.2 ± 19.2 vs. 62.8 ± 24.0, p < 0.001; 12-month PRTEE total 6.9 ± 15.0 vs. 28.1 ± 24.4, p < 0.001; 24-month PRTEE total 4.8 ± 9.8 vs. 12.7 ± 14.5, p = 0.029), and significantly better results in VAS and DASH sub-scores. The PRP group required significantly fewer surgical procedures (n = 0/0% vs. n = 6/20%, p = 0.027) at follow-up (mean 38.3 ± 12.3 months), and one case of prolonged pain after injection was detected. Conclusions: Patients who underwent PRP injections for epicondylitis resulted in better pain and functional outcomes compared to physiotherapy, and this improvement lasted at least 24 months. They required fewer surgical procedures and achieved faster recovery than the PT group. We recommend PRP for chronic epicondylitis of the elbow before considering surgery when other treatments have failed.
