Leukocyte poor platelet rich plasma vs leukocyte rich platelet rich plasma as a treatment for cervical facetogenic pain: A pooled analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) and leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) for the treatment of cervical facetogenic pain through a pooled analysis of two independent studies. The goal was to provide preliminary evidence comparing the effect on pain relief and functional improvement over time to help inform future research. Methods: The pooled analysis integrated data from two studies: a prospective case series of LR-PRP (n = 36) and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing LP-PRP (n = 21) with corticosteroid injections. Participants in both studies had chronic cervical facetogenic pain confirmed through medial branch blocks and were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months post-injection. Pain intensity was measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS), and functional disability was assessed using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Linear mixed-effects models evaluated treatment effects over time, controlling for age, sex, and pain duration. Clinically important differences in pain and disability were determined. Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Both PRP groups exhibited significant improvements in pain and functional outcomes. However, LR-PRP demonstrated superior efficacy at 6 months, with a greater reduction in NRS scores (β = -1.68, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = -1.15) and NDI scores (β = -3.66, p = 0.02, Cohen's d = -0.94) compared to LP-PRP. A higher proportion of LR-PRP participants achieved clinically significant pain relief (≥2-point NRS reduction) and functional improvement (≥10 % NDI reduction) at 6-months. No significant differences were observed at 3 months. Adverse events were more common in the LP-PRP group, with 11 documented cases, including increased pain and muscle spasms, whereas the LR-PRP group reported no adverse events. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that LR-PRP appears to provide greater long-term benefits for cervical facetogenic pain compared to LP-PRP, with superior pain reduction, improved function, and a favorable safety profile. These findings suggest the higher leukocyte concentration in LR-PRP may enhance therapeutic outcomes for cervical pain. Further large-scale, randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results and establish standardized PRP preparation protocols.
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 | 0.047 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".