{"title":"皮质类固醇注射治疗膝骨关节炎的临床疗效与透明质酸相似,但低于富血小板血浆:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Alessandro Bensa, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Angelo Boffa, Manuela Salerno, Giacomo Moraca, Giuseppe Filardo","doi":"10.1530/EOR-23-0198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management are endorsed by several scientific societies, while the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is more controversial. Aim of the study was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness of CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients with knee OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of CS injections and HA or PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA were included. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to interpret the clinical relevance of the improvements at different follow-ups up to 12 months. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and the GRADE guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five RCTs were included (3348 patients). The meta-analysis comparing CS and HA revealed no difference in terms of WOMAC improvement, while HA showed superior VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up (P = 0.011), without reaching the MCID. PRP offered a superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short- (P = 0.002), mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID), and long-term (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) follow-ups. PRP offered a superior VAS improvement at mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) and long-term (P = 0.023) follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CS injections for knee OA offer similar results to HA and PRP only at short term, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favour of PRP.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"9 9","pages":"883-895"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457815/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corticosteroid injections for knee osteoarthritis offer clinical benefits similar to hyaluronic acid and lower than platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Bensa, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Angelo Boffa, Manuela Salerno, Giacomo Moraca, Giuseppe Filardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EOR-23-0198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management are endorsed by several scientific societies, while the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is more controversial. Aim of the study was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness of CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients with knee OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of CS injections and HA or PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA were included. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to interpret the clinical relevance of the improvements at different follow-ups up to 12 months. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and the GRADE guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five RCTs were included (3348 patients). The meta-analysis comparing CS and HA revealed no difference in terms of WOMAC improvement, while HA showed superior VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up (P = 0.011), without reaching the MCID. PRP offered a superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short- (P = 0.002), mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID), and long-term (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) follow-ups. PRP offered a superior VAS improvement at mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) and long-term (P = 0.023) follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CS injections for knee OA offer similar results to HA and PRP only at short term, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favour of PRP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 9\",\"pages\":\"883-895\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457815/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0198\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:关节内皮质类固醇(CS)注射治疗膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)已得到多个科学协会的认可,而透明质酸(HA)和富血小板血浆(PRP)的使用则存在较大争议。本研究旨在量化和比较 CS 注射与 HA 和 PRP 对膝关节 OA 患者的临床疗效:方法:按照 PRISMA 指南在 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 上进行搜索。方法:按照 PRISMA 准则在 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web Science 上进行了搜索,纳入了有关 CS 注射与 HA 或 PRP 注射治疗膝关节 OA 比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用最小临床重要性差异(MCID)来解释不同随访时间(最长 12 个月)的改善效果的临床相关性。研究质量采用 Cochrane RoB-2 工具和 GRADE 指南进行评估:结果:共纳入 35 项 RCT(3348 名患者)。比较 CS 和 HA 的荟萃分析表明,两者在改善 WOMAC 方面没有差异,而 HA 在长期随访中显示出较好的 VAS 疼痛改善效果(P = 0.011),但未达到 MCID。在短期(P = 0.002)、中期(P < 0.001,超过 MCID)和长期(P < 0.001,超过 MCID)随访中,PRP 对 WOMAC 的改善均优于 CS。PRP在中期(P < 0.001,超过MCID)和长期(P = 0.023)随访中的VAS改善效果更佳:结论:CS 注射治疗膝关节 OA 仅在短期内具有与 HA 和 PRP 相似的效果,而在长期随访中,PRP 总体上更具优势。结论:CS 注射治疗膝关节 OA 仅在短期效果上与 HA 和 PRP 相似,而在长期随访中,PRP 总体上更胜一筹。
Corticosteroid injections for knee osteoarthritis offer clinical benefits similar to hyaluronic acid and lower than platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management are endorsed by several scientific societies, while the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is more controversial. Aim of the study was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness of CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients with knee OA.
Methods: The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of CS injections and HA or PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA were included. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to interpret the clinical relevance of the improvements at different follow-ups up to 12 months. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and the GRADE guidelines.
Results: Thirty-five RCTs were included (3348 patients). The meta-analysis comparing CS and HA revealed no difference in terms of WOMAC improvement, while HA showed superior VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up (P = 0.011), without reaching the MCID. PRP offered a superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short- (P = 0.002), mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID), and long-term (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) follow-ups. PRP offered a superior VAS improvement at mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) and long-term (P = 0.023) follow-ups.
Conclusion: CS injections for knee OA offer similar results to HA and PRP only at short term, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favour of PRP.
期刊介绍:
EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity.
This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances.
One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress.
EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.