The Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Reducing Pain and Improving Functional Outcomes for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a leading cause of global disability, characterized by chronic pain and functional decline. Current intra-articular therapies, such as corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, offer limited or transient benefits. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous concentration of growth factors, has emerged as a biological therapy with the potential to modulate the joint environment. This systematic review aims to synthesize the highest-level evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular PRP for reducing pain and improving function in patients with KOA. METHODS This review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Semanthic Scholar, Springer, and Wiley Online Library was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intra-articular PRP with placebo (saline), hyaluronic acid (HA), or corticosteroids (CS) for symptomatic KOA. Primary outcomes were changes in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. A broad range of secondary outcomes, including KOOS, IKDC, Lequesne Index, quality of life scores, and adverse events, were also assessed. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS The analysis included evidence from numerous RCTs comprising thousands of patients. The results demonstrate a distinct temporal pattern of efficacy for PRP. Compared to placebo, HA, and CS, PRP injections provide statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain and function, with benefits becoming most pronounced at mid- to long-term follow-up (6 to 12 months). Network meta-analyses consistently rank PRP as the most effective injectable therapy for sustained improvement. Efficacy is greatest in patients with mild-to-moderate KOA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades I–III), and leukocyte-poor PRP formulations appear to yield superior outcomes. PRP is safe, with the most common adverse events being minor, transient local reactions like pain and swelling. DISCUSSION The synthesized evidence indicates that the primary advantage of PRP over traditional injectables is the durability of its clinical benefit, which aligns with its proposed biological, disease-modulating mechanism of action rather than a purely palliative effect. However, the clinical applicability of these findings is challenged by significant heterogeneity across studies in PRP preparation protocols, injection schedules, and patient populations. This lack of standardization, coupled with methodological limitations in the primary literature, tempers the overall certainty of the evidence. CONCLUSION Intra-articular PRP is a safe and effective treatment for KOA, offering superior and more durable pain relief and functional improvement compared to HA and CS, particularly for patients with early-to-moderate disease. Standardization of PRP formulation and treatment protocols is critical to optimize outcomes and establish its definitive role in the clinical management of KOA.
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 | 0,040 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».