Randomized controlled trial comparing hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma and the combination of both in the treatment of mild and moderate osteoarthritis of the knee
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: This study aims at evaluating the clinical effects of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) and Hyaluronic Acid (HA) as individual treatments for mild to moderate Osteoarthritis (OA) and it also examines the potential synergistic effects of PRP in combination with HA.Research continues to emerge examining the potential therapeutic efficacy of HA and PRP as autologous injectable treatments for joint arthritis.However, there is a paucity of research investigating the effects of combining HA and PRP on pain and functional status in patients with OA.Design: In this multi-center, randomized, controlled, double blind, prospective trial, 105 patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis, who met the study criteria, were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: HA (n=36), PRP (n=36), or HA+PRP (n=33).Each patient received 3 intra-articular knee injections of their assigned substance, with 2 week intervals between each injection.Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire at baseline and after 1,3,6 and 12 months.Results: The study showed that the PRP group have significant reduction in VAS scores at 1 (p= 0.003), 3 (p= 0.0001), 6 (p= 0.0001) and 12 (p= 0.000) months when compared to HA.In addition, the PRP group illustrated greater improvement in WOMAC physical activity scale at 12 months (p= 0.008) when compared to the HA group.Combining HA and PRP resulted in a significant decreases in pain (p=0.0001) and functional limitation (p=0.0001) when compared to HA alone at 1 year post treatment; and significantly increased physical function at 1 (p=0.0004)and 3 (p=.011)months when compared to PRP alone. Conclusion:The findings of the study support the use of autologous PRP as an effective treatment of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.It also shows that the combination of HA and PRP resulted to better outcomes than HA alone up to 1 year and PRP alone up to 3 months.Furthermore, the results suggest that combination of PRP and HA could potentially provide better functional outcomes in the first 30 days after treatment with both PRP and HA alone.the extracellular matrix [4] , providing increased joint lubrication.Studies have demonstrated that HA has positive therapeutic efficacy for knee osteoarthritis with initial efficacy at 4 weeks, and peak effectiveness at 8 weeks which lasts for up to 6 months [5] .When compared to continuous oral NSAIDS or other anti-inflammatory medications, HA has illustrated comparable, if not greater, therapeutic effects on knee OA with a better safety profile [5,6] .Autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) has also emerged as an alternative in the context of injectable treatment for OA.PRP is comprised of a potent cellular milieu containing platelet concentrations above baseline, as well as an undifferentiated mixture of anti-inflammatory, pro-inflammatory, anabolic and catabolic mediators in an attempt to stimulate a supra-physiologic response and elicit the body's natural healing potential.Currently, most studies on PRP are anecdotal or case reports with small sample sizes.However, larger randomized controlled trials have demonstrated superior efficacy in areas such as tendinopathies [7] and knee osteoarthritis [8] .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».