Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with P‐PRP Versus that of L‐PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author:

Zhou Yiqin12ORCID,Li Haobo2ORCID,Cao Shiqi34,Han Yaguang2ORCID,Shao Jiahua2ORCID,Fu Qiwei2ORCID,Wang Bo2,Wu Jun2ORCID,Xiang Dong2,Liu Ziye2,Wang Huang2,Zhu Jun2ORCID,Qian Qirong2ORCID,Yang Xiaolei5,Wang Song1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Shanghai China

2. Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital Naval Medical University Shanghai China

3. Department of Orthopaedics Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing China

4. Department of Orthopaedics of TCM Clinical Unit, 6th Medical Center Chinese PLA General Hospital Beijing China

5. Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital Naval Medical University Shanghai China

Abstract

ObjectivePlatelet‐rich plasma(PRP), with different concentration of leukocytes, may lead to varying effects in the treatment of cartilage lesions. So far, current research has not shown enough evidence on this. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intra‐articular injection with pure platelet‐rich plasma (P‐PRP) versus those of leukocyte platelet‐rich plasma (L‐PRP) in treating knee cartilage lesions, we conducted a double‐blind, randomized controlled clinical trial with a larger sample and longer follow‐up period.MethodsFrom October 2019 to October 2020, 95 patients were invited to participate in our study, and 60 (63.2%) were randomized to P‐PRP (n = 30) or L‐PRP (n = 30) groups. Patients from the two groups were treated with knee intra‐articular injections of P‐PRP or L‐PRP. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were assessed using an unpaired t‐test for independent samples preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after intervention.ResultsWe followed up 27 cases in the P‐PRP group and 26 cases in the L‐PRP group. No significant differences in VAS and WOMAC scores were found between the two groups before the intervention (p > 0.05). The WOMAC Pain and VAS‐Motions scores of the P‐PRP group were significantly lower than those of the L‐PRP group at 6 weeks after the intervention (p < 0.05). While the long‐term clinical efficacy of both injections was similar and weakened after 12 months, more adverse events were found in the L‐PRP group.ConclusionsThe short‐term results demonstrate a positive effect in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee cartilage lesions in the two groups. While the P‐PRP injection showed better clinical efficacy in the early phase of postoperative rehabilitation and resulted in fewer adverse events, long‐term follow‐up showed similar and weakened efficacy after 12 months.Trial RegistrationChiCTR1900026365. Registered on October 3, 2019, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=43911.

Funder

National Natural Science Foundation of China

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3