Clinical Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis with MRI Analysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some evidence suggests that combining hyaluronic acid (HA) with platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) may offer synergistic benefits by enhancing the biological and mechanical properties of joints. However, data on the combination of HA+PRP vs. HA alone in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) remain limited. Methods: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at an outpatient clinic and enrolled 58 patients with Kellgren–Lawrence grade 2–3 knee OA. They were randomly allocated to receive either intra-articular PRP combined with HA (n = 29 knees) or HA alone (n = 29 knees). The primary outcome was pain, assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and structural changes on MRI, measured by the Whole-Organ MRI Score (WORMS). The VAS, WOMAC, and EQ-5D-5L were evaluated at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, and 12. MRI WORMS was assessed at baseline and 12 months. Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the HA+PRP and HA groups. Both interventions showed improvements in pain and function at 12 months. However, the between-group difference in VAS at 12 months—the primary outcome—was not statistically significant (p = 0.102) and did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 20 mm. The HA group demonstrated significantly greater VAS score reductions at 1 month (−31.1 [95% CI: −38.9 to −23.2] vs. −14.3 [95% CI: −22.2 to −6.4], p = 0.003) and at 6 months (−32.1 [95% CI: −40.1 to −24.1] vs. −19.2 [95% CI: −27.1 to −11.3], p = 0.024), compared to the HA+PRP group, although these differences did not reach clinical significance. No significant between-group differences were observed in the WOMAC scores, EQ-5D-5L, or total WORMS scores at all time points (p > 0.05). At 12 months, MRI assessment revealed a significant decrease in bone marrow edema in the HA+PRP group (−0.7 [95% CI: −1.6 to 0.2]) compared to the HA group (0.7 [95% CI: −0.2 to 1.6], p = 0.030). Conclusions: Both HA+PRP and HA treatments were effective in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA over 12 months. While HA demonstrated greater early pain relief, the addition of PRP was associated with a significant reduction in bone marrow edema at 12 months. These findings suggest potential structural benefits of HA+PRP, although clinical superiority over HA alone was not established.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".