The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave combined with platelet rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with meniscus injury: A retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) combined with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) with meniscus injury in terms of pain relief, functional outcome and complications. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. Clinical data of 144 patients with KOA accompanied by medial meniscus injury, who received treatment in Jilin Provincial People’s Hospital from March 2021 to December 2022, were retrospectively evaluated. A total of 128 patients (81 males and 47 females) were finally included in the study after screening. Of them, 45 patients received PRP treatment (PRP-group), 43 patients received ESW treatment (ESW-group), and 40 patients received ESW combined with PRP treatment (Combined-group). The relief of knee joint pain and functional improvement among three groups of patients were compared. Results: After treatment, visual analogue scale (VAS), Lequesne, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores of patients in the Combined-group were significantly lower than those in the other two groups (p<0.05). Combined ESW-PRP treatment was associated with significantly greater joint range of motion of patients compared to ESW and PRP alone (p<0.05). The total incidence of related complications in the Combined-group was lower compared to the other two groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: Compared with PRP or ESW treatment alone, ESW combined with PRP for KOA with meniscus injury can better alleviate pain, achieve faster functional recovery, and significantly reduce complications. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.3.8670 How to cite this: Li J, Li J, Li D, Jin X, Liu S, Zhang L. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave combined with platelet rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with meniscus injury: A retrospective analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(3):382-387. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.3.8670 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".