Comparing Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma With Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hip osteoarthritis (HOA), a prevalent condition among those aged 55 years and above, is a significant cause of joint pain and functional impairment and it contributes to the overall burden of chronic pain experienced by the elderly population. While platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections have emerged as innovative therapeutic approaches for managing osteoarthritis, their effectiveness in HOA remains a subject of contention. Therefore, the objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of PRP versus HA in terms of pain relief and functional outcomes for the management of HOA. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases from 2013 to 2023 to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of seven trials (478 participants) were included. The selected studies underwent quality assessment using the updated Cochrane risk of bias tool. The pain and functional outcomes were examined using measures of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, visual analog scale (VAS), and Harris hip score (HHS). In the meta-analysis, standard mean differences (SMDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate overall effect magnitudes for continuous outcomes were extracted. Statistical significance was determined using p-values below 0.05. At six months, the PRP group experienced a significantly lower standard mean WOMAC pain score (SMD = -0.38, CI = -0.64 - 0.13; p = 0.03). No significant differences in WOMAC pain scores were noted at one to two months (SMD = 0.09, CI = -0.24, 0.43; p = 0.59), and at 12 months (SMD = -0.85, CI = -1.81, 0.12; p = 0.09). Similarly, for VAS, patients on PRP showed a slight improvement in their VAS scores at six months (SMD = -0.50, CI = -0.89, -0.12; p < 0.01). However, no significant differences in VAS between the PRP groups and the HA groups were observed at one to two months (SMD = -0.22, CI = -0.49, 0.04; p = 0.10) and at 12 months (SMD = -0.22, CI: -0.63, 0.19; p = 0.29). In terms of hip dysfunction, there was no statistically significant standard mean difference in HHS between the PRP and HA groups at six months (SMD = 0.02, CI = -0.40, 0.44; p = 0.93), and at 12 months (SMD = -0.31, CI = -0.32, 0.22; p = 0.73). This review and meta-analysis provide insights into emerging treatments for HOA, especially considering that PRP shows potential benefits and safety for patients with HOA during mid-term follow-up in a 12-month period. Nevertheless, it is necessary to conduct research that includes high-quality designs and larger sample sizes to validate the comparative efficacy of these treatments.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».