Comparative efficacy of platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, and corticosteroid injections in adhesive capsulitis management: A meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
PM&R Pub Date : 2025-04-24 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13376
Robert Valencia, Gowtham Anche, Vivian Cao, Dexter Chen, Vince Song, Akash Dontamsetty, Mikhail Volokitin
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, and corticosteroid injections in adhesive capsulitis management: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Robert Valencia, Gowtham Anche, Vivian Cao, Dexter Chen, Vince Song, Akash Dontamsetty, Mikhail Volokitin","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) against corticosteroid injections in adult patients with adhesive capsulitis (AC), in impacting pain relief and range of motion (ROM).</p><p><strong>Literature survey: </strong>A systematic review was conducted between January and February 2024 through PubMed and Google Scholar using the following keywords: \"PRP,\" \"Hyaluronic Acid,\" \"Bone Marrow Aspirate,\" \"Frozen Shoulder,\" \"Periarthritis,\" \"Adhesive Capsulitis,\" and \"Corticosteroid Injections.\" Inclusion criteria were studies published between January 2019 and February 2024 and used corticosteroids as a comparison for orthobiologic treatment. The initial search yielded 47 studies, refined to 21 after applying eligibility criteria. Ultimately, six studies were selected.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, a Cochrane Risk of Bias analysis was performed, and data were independently extracted by multiple authors. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of PRP and HA against corticosteroids measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and UCLA Shoulder scores.</p><p><strong>Synthesis: </strong>Qualitatively, studies with 3 months or longer patient follow-ups demonstrated better long-term efficacy in pain reduction and ROM improvement with PRP or HA injections. A 6-month improvement in pain as measured by VAS had a significant standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.56 to 1.04). There were significant improvements in functional outcomes at 6 months in DASH (SMD of -1.23 [95% CI, -1.71 to -0.74]) and UCLA Shoulder scores (SMD of 0.74 [95% CI, 0.47-1.00]): No significant differences were observed in 3-month outcomes: DASH (SMD of -0.12 [95% CI, -0.54 to 0.30]) and SPADI scores (SMD of -0.34 [95% CI, -0.78 to 0.10]). Cochrane analysis identified one study with high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The review highlights orthobiologics as a promising alternative to corticosteroid injections in managing AC, with PRP providing more long-term pain relief compared to corticosteroid injections. Improvements in shoulder ROM were also seen but require further studies to determine their significance. However, substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> > 50) was observed, underscoring the need for future research to standardize methodologies and improve consistency.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13376","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) against corticosteroid injections in adult patients with adhesive capsulitis (AC), in impacting pain relief and range of motion (ROM).

Literature survey: A systematic review was conducted between January and February 2024 through PubMed and Google Scholar using the following keywords: "PRP," "Hyaluronic Acid," "Bone Marrow Aspirate," "Frozen Shoulder," "Periarthritis," "Adhesive Capsulitis," and "Corticosteroid Injections." Inclusion criteria were studies published between January 2019 and February 2024 and used corticosteroids as a comparison for orthobiologic treatment. The initial search yielded 47 studies, refined to 21 after applying eligibility criteria. Ultimately, six studies were selected.

Methodology: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, a Cochrane Risk of Bias analysis was performed, and data were independently extracted by multiple authors. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of PRP and HA against corticosteroids measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and UCLA Shoulder scores.

Synthesis: Qualitatively, studies with 3 months or longer patient follow-ups demonstrated better long-term efficacy in pain reduction and ROM improvement with PRP or HA injections. A 6-month improvement in pain as measured by VAS had a significant standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.56 to 1.04). There were significant improvements in functional outcomes at 6 months in DASH (SMD of -1.23 [95% CI, -1.71 to -0.74]) and UCLA Shoulder scores (SMD of 0.74 [95% CI, 0.47-1.00]): No significant differences were observed in 3-month outcomes: DASH (SMD of -0.12 [95% CI, -0.54 to 0.30]) and SPADI scores (SMD of -0.34 [95% CI, -0.78 to 0.10]). Cochrane analysis identified one study with high risk of bias.

Conclusions: The review highlights orthobiologics as a promising alternative to corticosteroid injections in managing AC, with PRP providing more long-term pain relief compared to corticosteroid injections. Improvements in shoulder ROM were also seen but require further studies to determine their significance. However, substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50) was observed, underscoring the need for future research to standardize methodologies and improve consistency.

富血小板血浆、透明质酸和皮质类固醇注射治疗粘连性囊炎的比较疗效:荟萃分析。
目的:比较富血小板血浆(PRP)和透明质酸(HA)对皮质类固醇注射对成人粘连性囊炎(AC)患者疼痛缓解和活动范围(ROM)的影响。文献调查:在2024年1月至2月期间,通过PubMed和谷歌Scholar进行了系统综述,使用以下关键词:“PRP”,“透明质酸”,“骨髓抽吸”,“冷冻肩”,“周炎”,“胶粘性囊炎”和“皮质类固醇注射”。纳入标准是2019年1月至2024年2月期间发表的研究,并使用皮质类固醇作为骨科治疗的比较。最初的搜索产生了47项研究,在应用资格标准后细化到21项。最终,我们选择了6项研究。方法:遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,进行Cochrane偏倚风险分析,数据由多位作者独立提取。通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)、肩痛和残疾指数(SPADI)、臂、肩和手残疾(DASH)和UCLA肩部评分来比较PRP和HA对皮质类固醇的疗效。综合:定性地,对患者随访3个月或更长时间的研究表明,PRP或HA注射在减轻疼痛和改善ROM方面有更好的长期疗效。VAS测量的6个月疼痛改善的标准化平均差异(SMD)为-1.31(95%可信区间[CI], -1.56至1.04)。6个月时,DASH (SMD为-1.23 [95% CI, -1.71至-0.74])和UCLA肩部评分(SMD为0.74 [95% CI, 0.47-1.00])的功能结局有显著改善。3个月时,DASH (SMD为-0.12 [95% CI, -0.54至0.30])和SPADI评分(SMD为-0.34 [95% CI, -0.78至0.10])的功能结局无显著差异。科克伦分析确定了一项具有高偏倚风险的研究。结论:这篇综述强调了在治疗AC方面,骨科作为皮质类固醇注射的一个有希望的替代方案,与皮质类固醇注射相比,PRP提供了更长期的疼痛缓解。肩部ROM也有改善,但需要进一步的研究来确定其意义。然而,观察到大量的异质性(I2 bbb50),强调了未来研究标准化方法和提高一致性的必要性。
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
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
×
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