Treating Severe Knee Osteoarthritis with Combination of Intra-Osseous and Intra-Articular Infiltrations of Platelet-Rich Plasma: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessing the therapeutic effects of a combination of intra-articular and intra-osseous infiltrations of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to treat severe knee osteoarthritis (KOA) using intra-articular injections of PRP as the control group. DESIGN: In this observational study, 60 patients suffering from severe KOA were treated with intra-articular infiltrations of PRP (IA group) or with a combination of intra-osseous and intra-articular infiltrations of PRP (IO group). Both groups were matched for sex, age, body mass index, and radiographic severity (III and IV degree according to Ahlbäck scale). Clinical outcome was evaluated at 2, 6, and 12 months, using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires. RESULTS: At 2, 6 and 12 months after treatment, IO group had a significant improvement in all KOOS and WOMAC subscales ( P < 0.05). On the contrary, patients of the IA group did not improve in any of the scores. Sixteen out of 30 IO group patients showed minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) whereas 8 out of 30 IA group patients showed this response at 6 months (26.7%; 95% CI -0.4 to 49.9; P = 0.037). At 12 months, 14 patients of IO group and 5 patients of the IA group showed MCII (30%; 95% CI 4.3 to 51.9; P = 0.013). No differences between groups were observed at 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: PRP intra-articular injections in severe KOA were not effective and did not provide any benefit. Combination of intra-articular and intra-osseous infiltrations of PRP was not clinically superior at 2 months, but it showed superior clinical outcomes at 6 and 12 months when compared with intra-articular injections of PRP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".