Comparison of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma with combination of bupivacaine and corticosteroid in osteoarthritis knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims: The use of intra-articular injection has been widely accepted as a therapy for pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. We aimed to compare the efficacy of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with a combination of bupivacaine and corticosteroid in osteoarthritis of the knee. Material and Methods: Fifty patients (aged more than 50 years) with pain pattern consistent with osteoarthritis of the knee who did not respond to conservative treatment were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups of 25 each: group I ( n = 25) patients were administered fluoroscope-guided intra-articular knee injection of bupivacaine and steroid, and group II ( n = 25) patients were administered intra-articular knee injection of PRP. In group I, patients were administered 9 ml of drug solution comprising 8 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine and 1 ml of triamcinolone (40 mg). In group II, patients were administered 6 ml of PRP. Pain, patient satisfaction, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed at different time intervals before and after the procedure for up to 12 months. Results: Pain score and WOMAC were both clinically and statistically better at 2 weeks and 1 month after injection in group I ( P < 0.05). But results were better clinically in group II compared to group I at 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. More than 50% of patients in both groups had excellent satisfaction. Conclusions: Both techniques were effective in providing good analgesia. Pain relief and improvement in disability were clinically higher with PRP for longer duration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".