Paper 14: Leukocyte-Poor Platelet Rich Plasma versus Leukocyte-Poor Platelet Rich Plasma Plus Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized Control Trial with 2 Year Follow Up
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine if hyaluronic acid (HA) injected at the same time as leukocyte-poor platelet rich plasma LP-PRP would improve the performance compared to LP-PRP alone in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. We hypothesized that the addition of hyaluronic acid would improve the efficacy of LP-PRP. Methods: Patients between the ages of 30 and 80 who had symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-4 were eligible for the study. Patients were offered enrollment and screened with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The participants were randomized into two study groups and scheduled to receive a three-injection series. Group 1 [LP-PRP] received 3 intra-articularinjections of LP-PRP dosed at one week intervals. Group 2 [LP-PRP/HA] received 3 intra-articular injections of LP-PRP dosed at one week intervals, with hyaluronic acid (Hymovis) injected concomitantly for the first two injections. The Arthrex Autologous Conditioned Plasma system was used to prepare all LP-PRP injections. Participants were blinded to injection randomization and wore a blind fold for the first two injections. Participants completed patient reported outcome questionnaires prior to their injections and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the final injection. The questionnaires included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universitys Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Results: The study population included 63 total subjects, 32 subjects were randomized to Group 1 (ACP) with average age 55.8 +/- 11.4, 31 subjects were randomized to group 2 (ACP+HA) with average age 60.4 +/- 9.0. Both groups demonstrated improvement over baseline at 1 and 3 months, with improvement plateauing at 3 months. Both groups demonstrated improvement over baseline out to 24 months. The LP-PRP/HA group demonstrated increased improvement compared to group 1 at 1 and 3 months but consistently trended down in both the WOMAC, IKDC, and KOOS scores however statistical significance was not reached. The LP-PRP groups improvement was consistent until the 18 month time point. Complete patient reported outcome data is included in Table 1. Change in WOMAC, IKDC and KOOS scores over time are represented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: Both groups demonstrated improvement over baseline at 1 and 3 months, with improvement plateauing at 3months. Both groups demonstrated improvement over baseline out to 24 months. The LP-PRP/HA group demonstrated increased improvement compared to the LP-PRP group at 1 and 3 months, however statistical significance was not reached and the improvement diminished after the 12 month time point. The LP-PRP group did not see a diminishing improvement until the 18 month time point. [Table: see text][Figure: see text][Figure: see text][Figure: see text]
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 | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,002 |
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 ».