Intra‐articular Pure Platelet‐Rich Plasma Combined With Open‐Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Improves Clinical Outcomes and Minimal Joint Space Width Compared With High Tibial Osteotomy Alone in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of the patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis who underwent either opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy alone (HTO) or simultaneous HTO and pure platelet-rich plasma therapy (HTO+P-PRP). METHODS: Eighty patients were divided into 2 groups randomly, the HTO-alone group (n = 41) and the HTO+P-PRP group (n = 39). Patients were matched for preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. The outcomes studied included visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lysholm score. The minimum width of medial knee joint (MJSW), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), femoral tibial angle (FTA), and weightbearing line (WBL) were measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Paired t test and chi-squared test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: All patients were followed up at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. At 1, 6, and 12 months, pain and function scores in the HTO+P-PRP group were better than those in the HTO-alone group, especially at 6 months in Lysholm score (HTO alone, 72.5 ± 10.6; HTO+P-PRP, 83.1 ± 14.7; P = .003, 95% CI -14.13 to -10.42) and WOMAC (HTO alone, 90.3 ± 11.9; HTO+P-PRP, 75.6 ± 15.4; P < .001, 95% CI 13.36 to 20.11). For both groups, no difference was found preoperatively (HTO alone, varus 3.5 ± 3.9; HTO+P-PRP, varus 4.1 ± 4.0; P = .898) or postoperatively (HTO alone, valgus 6.7 ± 4.5; HTO+P-PRP, valgus 7.7 ± 2.3; P = .768) in FTA or WBL. The increase of the MJSW in the HTO+P-PRP group was significantly greater than that in the HTO-alone group during the first year, especially at 6 months (HTO alone, 3.8 ± 1.2 mm; HTO+P-PRP, 4.6 ± 1.1 mm; P = .001, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HTO alone, HTO combined with intra-articular P-PRP improved the minimum medial knee joint space width during the first year postoperatively. Clinically, a higher proportion of patients in the HTO+P-PRP group exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the first year, especially at 6 months in Lysholm score (HTO alone, 65.9%; HTO+P-PRP, 97.4%) and WOMAC (HTO alone, 82.9%; HTO+P-PRP, 100.0%). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".