Agustin Herber , Oscar Covarrubias , Mohammad Daher , Wei Shao Tung , Arianna L. Gianakos
{"title":"富血小板血浆疗法与其他足底筋膜炎治疗方法的比较：系统回顾与元分析","authors":"Agustin Herber , Oscar Covarrubias , Mohammad Daher , Wei Shao Tung , Arianna L. Gianakos","doi":"10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. There are numerous non-operative treatments available including platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. PPR has demonstrated effectiveness for a range of musculoskeletal conditions including plantar fasciitis.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose/Objective</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness of PRP to other conservative treatment options for the management of PF.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed for randomized control trials (RCT) comparing PRP to other treatment modalities. Studies met inclusion criteria if mean and standard deviations for visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, plantar fascia thickness (PFT), Foot Function Index (FFI), or American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score were reported. Mean differences (MD) were used to compare VAS pain, PFT, FFI, and AOFAS between PRP and other treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-one RCTs which altogether included 1356 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS pain scores compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) (SMD: 0.86; CI: [0.30, 1.41]; p = 0.002), corticosteroid injections (CSI) (SMD: 1.08; CI: [0.05, 2.11]; p = 0.04), and placebo (SMD: 3.42; CI: [2.53, 4.31]; p < 0.00001). In terms of FFI, no significant differences existed among PRP, ESWT, CSI, dextrose prolotherapy (DPT), and meridian trigger points (MTP) in enhancing foot functionality. However, PRP demonstrated a marked advantage over phonophoresis, showing a substantial improvement in FFI scores (SMD: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.34–3.81). PRP did not demonstrate superiority over ESWT, CSI, or MTP for improving PFT, but it was notably more effective than phonophoresis (SMD: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43–3.94). PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AOFAS scores over CSI (SMD: 3.31, CI: [1.35, 5.27], p = 0.0009) and placebo (SMD: 3.75; CI: [2.81, 4.70]; p < 0.00001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PRP is more effective than CSI, ESWT, and placebo in reducing VAS and more effective than CSI and placebo in improving AOFAS. PRP did not demonstrate a consistent advantage across all outcome measures, such as PFT and FFI. These findings underscore the complexity of PF treatment and call for a more standardized approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level I Meta-Analysis</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48743,"journal":{"name":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","volume":"30 4","pages":"Pages 285-293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Agustin Herber , Oscar Covarrubias , Mohammad Daher , Wei Shao Tung , Arianna L. Gianakos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. There are numerous non-operative treatments available including platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. PPR has demonstrated effectiveness for a range of musculoskeletal conditions including plantar fasciitis.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose/Objective</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness of PRP to other conservative treatment options for the management of PF.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed for randomized control trials (RCT) comparing PRP to other treatment modalities. Studies met inclusion criteria if mean and standard deviations for visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, plantar fascia thickness (PFT), Foot Function Index (FFI), or American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score were reported. Mean differences (MD) were used to compare VAS pain, PFT, FFI, and AOFAS between PRP and other treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-one RCTs which altogether included 1356 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS pain scores compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) (SMD: 0.86; CI: [0.30, 1.41]; p = 0.002), corticosteroid injections (CSI) (SMD: 1.08; CI: [0.05, 2.11]; p = 0.04), and placebo (SMD: 3.42; CI: [2.53, 4.31]; p < 0.00001). In terms of FFI, no significant differences existed among PRP, ESWT, CSI, dextrose prolotherapy (DPT), and meridian trigger points (MTP) in enhancing foot functionality. However, PRP demonstrated a marked advantage over phonophoresis, showing a substantial improvement in FFI scores (SMD: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.34–3.81). PRP did not demonstrate superiority over ESWT, CSI, or MTP for improving PFT, but it was notably more effective than phonophoresis (SMD: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43–3.94). PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AOFAS scores over CSI (SMD: 3.31, CI: [1.35, 5.27], p = 0.0009) and placebo (SMD: 3.75; CI: [2.81, 4.70]; p < 0.00001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PRP is more effective than CSI, ESWT, and placebo in reducing VAS and more effective than CSI and placebo in improving AOFAS. PRP did not demonstrate a consistent advantage across all outcome measures, such as PFT and FFI. These findings underscore the complexity of PF treatment and call for a more standardized approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level I Meta-Analysis</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot and Ankle Surgery\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 285-293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot and Ankle Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1268773124000316\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1268773124000316","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. There are numerous non-operative treatments available including platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. PPR has demonstrated effectiveness for a range of musculoskeletal conditions including plantar fasciitis.
Purpose/Objective
To compare the effectiveness of PRP to other conservative treatment options for the management of PF.
Methods
A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed for randomized control trials (RCT) comparing PRP to other treatment modalities. Studies met inclusion criteria if mean and standard deviations for visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, plantar fascia thickness (PFT), Foot Function Index (FFI), or American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score were reported. Mean differences (MD) were used to compare VAS pain, PFT, FFI, and AOFAS between PRP and other treatments.
Results
Twenty-one RCTs which altogether included 1356 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS pain scores compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) (SMD: 0.86; CI: [0.30, 1.41]; p = 0.002), corticosteroid injections (CSI) (SMD: 1.08; CI: [0.05, 2.11]; p = 0.04), and placebo (SMD: 3.42; CI: [2.53, 4.31]; p < 0.00001). In terms of FFI, no significant differences existed among PRP, ESWT, CSI, dextrose prolotherapy (DPT), and meridian trigger points (MTP) in enhancing foot functionality. However, PRP demonstrated a marked advantage over phonophoresis, showing a substantial improvement in FFI scores (SMD: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.34–3.81). PRP did not demonstrate superiority over ESWT, CSI, or MTP for improving PFT, but it was notably more effective than phonophoresis (SMD: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43–3.94). PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AOFAS scores over CSI (SMD: 3.31, CI: [1.35, 5.27], p = 0.0009) and placebo (SMD: 3.75; CI: [2.81, 4.70]; p < 0.00001).
Conclusion
PRP is more effective than CSI, ESWT, and placebo in reducing VAS and more effective than CSI and placebo in improving AOFAS. PRP did not demonstrate a consistent advantage across all outcome measures, such as PFT and FFI. These findings underscore the complexity of PF treatment and call for a more standardized approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.
期刊介绍：
Foot and Ankle Surgery is essential reading for everyone interested in the foot and ankle and its disorders. The approach is broad and includes all aspects of the subject from basic science to clinical management. Problems of both children and adults are included, as is trauma and chronic disease. Foot and Ankle Surgery is the official journal of European Foot and Ankle Society.
The aims of this journal are to promote the art and science of ankle and foot surgery, to publish peer-reviewed research articles, to provide regular reviews by acknowledged experts on common problems, and to provide a forum for discussion with letters to the Editors. Reviews of books are also published. Papers are invited for possible publication in Foot and Ankle Surgery on the understanding that the material has not been published elsewhere or accepted for publication in another journal and does not infringe prior copyright.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
