An exploratory comparison of single intra‐articular injection of platelet‐rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid in treatment of haemophilic arthropathy of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection therapy has been extensively applied in clinical practice to treat musculoskeletal disorders such as osteoarthritis, but the treatment for haemophilic arthropathy is rarely reported. AIMS: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intra-articular PRP vs hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in treating haemophilic arthropathy of knee joints. PATIENTS: Twenty-two haemophilia patients (mean age, 41.1 ± 1.7 [range, 20-50] years) with painful haemophilic arthropathy of the knee were enrolled for this open-label and observer-blind study. METHODS: Eleven patients were treated with a single intra-articular injection of PRP and the other 11 received five consecutively weekly intra-articular injections of HA. Outcome assessment included pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Chinese Version and synovial change determined by ultrasonography. RESULTS: Platelet-rich plasma and HA intra-articular injection showed statistically significant reduction in VAS, WOMAC total score and hyperaemia score from baseline to 6-month post-treatment. Inter-group comparison showed statistically significant difference in the change in VAS score, WOMAC pain score, physical function score and total score at 6 months, wherein PRP group showed sustained beneficial effect than HA group at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that, in comparison with five weekly injections of HA, a single PRP injection resulted in better improvement in pain relief and knee joint function, and greater reduction in synovial hyperaemia for up to 6 months. Our results suggest that PRP may be practical and effective for haemophilic knee arthropathy, and further investigation is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".