Comparative efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injection vs ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection in the rehabilitation of hip osteoarthritis: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have been the subject of extensive study in knee osteoarthritis (OA), yet their effectiveness in hip OA has not been explored.Objective To assess and evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of autologous PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) in treating hip OA.Methods Intra-articular injections were administered to 150 patients with hip osteoarthritis, and the patients were divided into two groups: PRP and HA. The evaluation of clinical outcomes was conducted using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Outcomes were compared using regression analysis, repeated measure ANOVA, and Pearson correlation test.Results The PRP group showed greater improvements in all scores (p < 0.05) compared to HA. PRP injection significantly reduced VAS and WOMAC scores [VAS score (MD 2.238, 95% CI 0.065-3.21) and WOMAC score (MD 1.033, 95% CI 0.06-1.526)], while HHS score increased (MD 1.02, 95% CI 0.06-1.126). IL-10 and VAS score showed a moderate correlation in the PRP group (r = 0.591). While statistical significance is indicated by the results, it is suggested that the changes in scores are small and may not be representative of any clinical significance.Conclusion It has been demonstrated by the findings of this study that pain and joint discomfort may be decreased by the administration of PRP injections, which may aid in the management of hip OA. However, there was no clinical difference between PRP and HA treatments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".