Is platelet-rich plasma better than steroids as epidural drug of choice in lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Experimental Biology and Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/ebm.2025.10390
Sathish Muthu, Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan, Prakash Gangadaran
{"title":"Is platelet-rich plasma better than steroids as epidural drug of choice in lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Sathish Muthu, Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan, Prakash Gangadaran","doi":"10.3389/ebm.2025.10390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current meta-analysis was performed to analyze the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an epidural injectate, in comparison with steroids in the management of radiculopathy due to lumbar disc disease (LDD). We conducted independent and duplicate searches of the electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) in March 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the efficacy of epidural PRP for pain relief in the management of LDD. Animal or <i>in vitro</i> studies, clinical studies without a comparator group, and retrospective or non-randomised clinical studies were excluded. Diverse post-intervention pain scores [visual analog score (VAS)] and functional scores [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36], as reported in the reviewed studies, were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 17 software. 5 RCTs including 310 patients (PRP/Steroids = 153/157) were included in the analysis. The included studies compared the efficacy and safety of epidural PRP and steroids at various time-points including 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Epidural PRP injection was found to offer comparable pain relief (VAS; WMD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.47], p = 0.641; I<sup>2</sup> = 96.72%, p < 0.001), functional improvement (ODI; WMD = 0.72, 95% CI [-6.81, 8.25], p = 0.524; I<sup>2</sup> = 98.73%, p < 0.001), and overall health improvement (SF-36; WMD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.14, 3.17], p = 0.224; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%, p = 0.36) as epidural steroid injection (ESI) at all the observed time points in the included studies without any increase in adverse events or complications. Epidural administration of PRP offers comparable benefit as epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the management of radiculopathy due to LDD. The safety profile of the epidural PRP is also similar to ESI.</p>","PeriodicalId":12163,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Biology and Medicine","volume":"250 ","pages":"10390"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11832311/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ebm.2025.10390","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current meta-analysis was performed to analyze the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an epidural injectate, in comparison with steroids in the management of radiculopathy due to lumbar disc disease (LDD). We conducted independent and duplicate searches of the electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) in March 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the efficacy of epidural PRP for pain relief in the management of LDD. Animal or in vitro studies, clinical studies without a comparator group, and retrospective or non-randomised clinical studies were excluded. Diverse post-intervention pain scores [visual analog score (VAS)] and functional scores [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36], as reported in the reviewed studies, were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 17 software. 5 RCTs including 310 patients (PRP/Steroids = 153/157) were included in the analysis. The included studies compared the efficacy and safety of epidural PRP and steroids at various time-points including 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Epidural PRP injection was found to offer comparable pain relief (VAS; WMD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.47], p = 0.641; I2 = 96.72%, p < 0.001), functional improvement (ODI; WMD = 0.72, 95% CI [-6.81, 8.25], p = 0.524; I2 = 98.73%, p < 0.001), and overall health improvement (SF-36; WMD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.14, 3.17], p = 0.224; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.36) as epidural steroid injection (ESI) at all the observed time points in the included studies without any increase in adverse events or complications. Epidural administration of PRP offers comparable benefit as epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the management of radiculopathy due to LDD. The safety profile of the epidural PRP is also similar to ESI.

富血小板血浆作为腰椎间盘突出症的硬膜外首选药物是否优于类固醇?随机对照试验的元分析。
当前的荟萃分析是为了分析富血小板血浆(PRP)作为硬膜外注射与类固醇治疗腰椎间盘病(LDD)引起的神经根病的有效性和安全性。我们于2024年3月对电子数据库(PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library)进行了独立和重复检索,以确定分析硬膜外PRP缓解LDD疼痛疗效的随机对照试验(rct)。排除了动物或体外研究、没有比较组的临床研究以及回顾性或非随机临床研究。对所回顾研究中报道的不同干预后疼痛评分[视觉模拟评分(VAS)]和功能评分[Oswestry残疾指数(ODI), SF-36]进行评估。采用STATA 17软件进行统计学分析。5项随机对照试验共纳入310例患者(PRP/Steroids = 153/157)。纳入的研究比较了硬膜外PRP和类固醇在不同时间点的疗效和安全性,包括1、3、6、12、24和48周。发现硬膜外PRP注射可提供相当的疼痛缓解(VAS;WMD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.47], p = 0.641;I2 = 96.72%, p < 0.001),功能改善(ODI;WMD = 0.72, 95% CI [-6.81, 8.25], p = 0.524;I2 = 98.73%, p < 0.001),总体健康状况改善(SF-36;WMD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.14, 3.17], p = 0.224;I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.36)作为硬膜外类固醇注射(ESI),在纳入研究的所有观察时间点,不良事件或并发症均未增加。在LDD引起的神经根病的治疗中,硬膜外给药PRP与硬膜外类固醇注射(ESI)具有相当的疗效。硬膜外PRP的安全性也与ESI相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Experimental Biology and Medicine
Experimental Biology and Medicine 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
157
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Experimental Biology and Medicine (EBM) is a global, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the biomedical sciences. EBM provides both research and review articles as well as meeting symposia and brief communications. Articles in EBM represent cutting edge research at the overlapping junctions of the biological, physical and engineering sciences that impact upon the health and welfare of the world''s population. Topics covered in EBM include: Anatomy/Pathology; Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Bioimaging; Biomedical Engineering; Bionanoscience; Cell and Developmental Biology; Endocrinology and Nutrition; Environmental Health/Biomarkers/Precision Medicine; Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics; Immunology/Microbiology/Virology; Mechanisms of Aging; Neuroscience; Pharmacology and Toxicology; Physiology; Stem Cell Biology; Structural Biology; Systems Biology and Microphysiological Systems; and Translational Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信