Single shot of knee intraarticular injection of Platelets rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid injections for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. An observational prospective study
Dheyaa MOHAMMED ABDULWAHAB, Saad Abdul Azeez ABDUL LATEEF, Waleed Fari̇s, Younis Abdul Rahman RASHEED AL RADHWANY
{"title":"Single shot of knee intraarticular injection of Platelets rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid injections for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. An observational prospective study","authors":"Dheyaa MOHAMMED ABDULWAHAB, Saad Abdul Azeez ABDUL LATEEF, Waleed Fari̇s, Younis Abdul Rahman RASHEED AL RADHWANY","doi":"10.33438/ijdshs.1389727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A very common degenerative joint disorders is knee osteoarthritis (KOA) \nwhich slow articular cartilage damage, the inflammation of the synovial membranes, and \nalterations in the bones beneath the cartilage characterize [1 ,2 ,3 , 4].Osteoarthritis of the knee \naffects 10–18% of people, and if left untreated, it can cause considerable physical \nimpairment [5 ,6 , 7]. Currently less Invasive interventions attract more and more attention, \nlike steroid, hyaluronic acid (HA), stem cell injections and plasma injections which is rich \nwith platelet (PRP). Yet, whether treating with PRP vs. HA is the most effective for knee OA \nis still controversial. \nThe current work assessed the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular PRP and HA in \nthose with KOA. \nPatients & Methods: The current work was prospective randomized observational. \nSuitable patients with knee discomfort were pre-screened completing an informed consent \nand satisfied the inclusion criteria. Thus, they were eligible and split into two groups in a \n1:1 ratio. \nGroup1; 72 patients were injected with 1 intra-articular of PRP. The drawn blood mean \namount was 15 mL. We used noncommercial double syringe PRP Kit for infiltring 1 mL \nanticoagulant (sodium citrate). We centrifuged the citrated blood at 3000 rpm for 10 min. \nPlasmatic fraction produced 3-5 mL pure PRP solutions and utilized for the injections of \nintra-articular PRP. \nGroup 2; 72 patients received single intra-articular injections of HA (80 mg/4 mL). \nAll of the patients were assessed prior to the infiltration as well as 1, 3, and 6 and 12 months \nfollowing the injection. Pain, articular stiffness, and functional restriction were examined by \nthe McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis and Western Ontario and index questionnaires. The \nsame physicians were in charge of this stage. \nResults: The PRP group was 27 men and 45 women with a mean age of 62.5 years. The \nscore of mean of WOMAC before therapy was 72.8. The Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic \nclassification was used to classify the patients: 31had grade II OA changes, 41 had grade III. \nIn 47 cases, the right knee was afflicted, while in 25 individuals, the left knee was affected. \nThe HA group included 30 men and 42 women with a mean age (60.8) years. In this group, \nthe score of mean of WOMAC before therapy was 76.3. The Kellgren-Lawrence \nclassification was used to assess the patients again: 33 had grade II, 39 had grade III. The \ndisease afflicted 49 patients' right knees and 23 individuals' left knees. \n \nThe total WOMAC score was significantly lower at one month when relative to the reference \nin the HA group with a score of WOMAC mean 48.8 with p<0.05 against no significant \nchange in PRP groups with score of mean of WOMAC of 68.9. \nAt 3 months, each group significantly reduced the general WOMAC score in comparison the \nreferences in both groups. The score of mean of WOMAC was 48.2 in the HA vs. 47.9 in the \nPRP group. The PRP and the HA groups statistically differe(P< 0.05) at this time point. \nAt 6 moths, a reversal of pattern was noted, with patients treated with PRP continuing to \nimprove and those treated with HA slightly worsening. The PRP group had a score of mean \nof WOMAC of 39.4 compared 56.3 in the HA group. There was a statistically significant \ndifference between the two groups (P< 0.05). \nPRP group exhibited a steady worsening whereas those treated with HA showed a rapid \ndeterioration at 12 months. The WOMAC scores of most participants in the HA group \nrelapsed to their baseline levels. Despite the fact that the PRP group's score of mean of \nWOMAC was 58.9, the HA group reacher74.1 and the both groups differ statistically and \nsignificantly (P < 0.05). \nConclusion and recommendations: The overall PRP improvement outweighs HA \ninjections. Additional RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are required of determining the \nbest PRP and HA dosages and intervals.","PeriodicalId":286035,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Disabilities Sports & Health Sciences","volume":"76 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Disabilities Sports & Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33438/ijdshs.1389727","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: A very common degenerative joint disorders is knee osteoarthritis (KOA)
which slow articular cartilage damage, the inflammation of the synovial membranes, and
alterations in the bones beneath the cartilage characterize [1 ,2 ,3 , 4].Osteoarthritis of the knee
affects 10–18% of people, and if left untreated, it can cause considerable physical
impairment [5 ,6 , 7]. Currently less Invasive interventions attract more and more attention,
like steroid, hyaluronic acid (HA), stem cell injections and plasma injections which is rich
with platelet (PRP). Yet, whether treating with PRP vs. HA is the most effective for knee OA
is still controversial.
The current work assessed the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular PRP and HA in
those with KOA.
Patients & Methods: The current work was prospective randomized observational.
Suitable patients with knee discomfort were pre-screened completing an informed consent
and satisfied the inclusion criteria. Thus, they were eligible and split into two groups in a
1:1 ratio.
Group1; 72 patients were injected with 1 intra-articular of PRP. The drawn blood mean
amount was 15 mL. We used noncommercial double syringe PRP Kit for infiltring 1 mL
anticoagulant (sodium citrate). We centrifuged the citrated blood at 3000 rpm for 10 min.
Plasmatic fraction produced 3-5 mL pure PRP solutions and utilized for the injections of
intra-articular PRP.
Group 2; 72 patients received single intra-articular injections of HA (80 mg/4 mL).
All of the patients were assessed prior to the infiltration as well as 1, 3, and 6 and 12 months
following the injection. Pain, articular stiffness, and functional restriction were examined by
the McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis and Western Ontario and index questionnaires. The
same physicians were in charge of this stage.
Results: The PRP group was 27 men and 45 women with a mean age of 62.5 years. The
score of mean of WOMAC before therapy was 72.8. The Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic
classification was used to classify the patients: 31had grade II OA changes, 41 had grade III.
In 47 cases, the right knee was afflicted, while in 25 individuals, the left knee was affected.
The HA group included 30 men and 42 women with a mean age (60.8) years. In this group,
the score of mean of WOMAC before therapy was 76.3. The Kellgren-Lawrence
classification was used to assess the patients again: 33 had grade II, 39 had grade III. The
disease afflicted 49 patients' right knees and 23 individuals' left knees.
The total WOMAC score was significantly lower at one month when relative to the reference
in the HA group with a score of WOMAC mean 48.8 with p<0.05 against no significant
change in PRP groups with score of mean of WOMAC of 68.9.
At 3 months, each group significantly reduced the general WOMAC score in comparison the
references in both groups. The score of mean of WOMAC was 48.2 in the HA vs. 47.9 in the
PRP group. The PRP and the HA groups statistically differe(P< 0.05) at this time point.
At 6 moths, a reversal of pattern was noted, with patients treated with PRP continuing to
improve and those treated with HA slightly worsening. The PRP group had a score of mean
of WOMAC of 39.4 compared 56.3 in the HA group. There was a statistically significant
difference between the two groups (P< 0.05).
PRP group exhibited a steady worsening whereas those treated with HA showed a rapid
deterioration at 12 months. The WOMAC scores of most participants in the HA group
relapsed to their baseline levels. Despite the fact that the PRP group's score of mean of
WOMAC was 58.9, the HA group reacher74.1 and the both groups differ statistically and
significantly (P < 0.05).
Conclusion and recommendations: The overall PRP improvement outweighs HA
injections. Additional RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are required of determining the
best PRP and HA dosages and intervals.