Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-10 DOI:10.5397/cise.2024.00801
Ralph Maroun, Mohammad Daher, Peter Boufadel, Ryan Lopez, Adam Z Khan, Joseph A Abboud
{"title":"Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Ralph Maroun, Mohammad Daher, Peter Boufadel, Ryan Lopez, Adam Z Khan, Joseph A Abboud","doi":"10.5397/cise.2024.00801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lateral epicondylitis, colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a common cause of elbow pain and daily task disability. Caused by repetitive movement, it is typically a degenerative rather than inflammatory event and affects mostly middle-aged patients. Despite its good prognostic nature, its economic burden on the healthcare system encourages research on the efficacity of non-operative injection treatments. This article aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing lateral epicondylitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six randomized controlled trials with 1.877 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of VAS scores, short-term results (<2 months) favored CS over PRP (P=0.03; mean difference [MD], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.28), whereas long-term results (>6 months) favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.20]). Intermediate-term results (2-6 months) showed no significant difference between injection treatments. In terms of DASH scores, short- and intermediate-term results showed no significant difference, whereas long-term results favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -4.87; 95% CI, -7.69 to -2.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CS provides significantly better short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term functional improvement and clinical long-term pain relief. However, future studies should focus on other injection protocols or addition of other non-invasive modalities. Level of evidence: I.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":"28 1","pages":"40-48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11938920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2024.00801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lateral epicondylitis, colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a common cause of elbow pain and daily task disability. Caused by repetitive movement, it is typically a degenerative rather than inflammatory event and affects mostly middle-aged patients. Despite its good prognostic nature, its economic burden on the healthcare system encourages research on the efficacity of non-operative injection treatments. This article aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing lateral epicondylitis.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.

Results: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials with 1.877 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of VAS scores, short-term results (<2 months) favored CS over PRP (P=0.03; mean difference [MD], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.28), whereas long-term results (>6 months) favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.20]). Intermediate-term results (2-6 months) showed no significant difference between injection treatments. In terms of DASH scores, short- and intermediate-term results showed no significant difference, whereas long-term results favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -4.87; 95% CI, -7.69 to -2.06).

Conclusions: CS provides significantly better short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term functional improvement and clinical long-term pain relief. However, future studies should focus on other injection protocols or addition of other non-invasive modalities. Level of evidence: I.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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