Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Autogenous Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Viscosupplementation in Treatment of Early Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease, particularly in older adults, resulting in pain, disability, and reduced quality of life.Earlystage OA can benefit from non-surgical treatments like platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA).Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy of autogenous PRP versus HA injections in managing pain, improving function, and enhancing patient satisfaction in early knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1 and 2).Method: A total of 122 patients diagnosed with early knee OA were randomly assigned to receive either PRP or HA injections.Each patient received three injections at three-week intervals.Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional improvement was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).Patient satisfaction was evaluated via a self-reported questionnaire at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-treatment.Results: At 12 months, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain and function.The PRP group showed a 40% reduction in VAS scores and a 35% improvement in WOMAC scores, while the HA group showed a 30% reduction in VAS and a 25% improvement in WOMAC.Patient satisfaction was higher in the PRP group, with 80% reporting significant improvement compared to 65% in the HA group.Conclusions: PRP injections provided superior pain relief, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction compared to HA injections, suggesting PRP as a more effective treatment for early knee OA.
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) | 0.001 | 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".