Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with <scp>P‐PRP</scp> Versus that of <scp>L‐PRP</scp> in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Platelet-rich plasma（PRP), with different concentration of leukocytes, may lead to varying effects in the treatment of cartilage lesions. So far, current research has not shown enough evidence on this. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection with pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) versus those of leukocyte platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) in treating knee cartilage lesions, we conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial with a larger sample and longer follow-up period. METHODS: From October 2019 to October 2020, 95 patients were invited to participate in our study, and 60 (63.2%) were randomized to P-PRP (n = 30) or L-PRP (n = 30) groups. Patients from the two groups were treated with knee intra-articular injections of P-PRP or L-PRP. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were assessed using an unpaired t-test for independent samples preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: We followed up 27 cases in the P-PRP group and 26 cases in the L-PRP group. No significant differences in VAS and WOMAC scores were found between the two groups before the intervention (p > 0.05). The WOMAC Pain and VAS-Motions scores of the P-PRP group were significantly lower than those of the L-PRP group at 6 weeks after the intervention (p < 0.05). While the long-term clinical efficacy of both injections was similar and weakened after 12 months, more adverse events were found in the L-PRP group. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term results demonstrate a positive effect in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee cartilage lesions in the two groups. While the P-PRP injection showed better clinical efficacy in the early phase of postoperative rehabilitation and resulted in fewer adverse events, long-term follow-up showed similar and weakened efficacy after 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR1900026365. Registered on October 3, 2019, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=43911.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".