Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Based on Achievement of Minimal Clinically Important Difference.
lateral epicondylitis
minimal clinically important difference
platelet-rich plasma
tennis elbow
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
01
12
2021
accepted:
10
01
2022
entrez:
15
4
2022
pubmed:
16
4
2022
medline:
16
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains debatable. To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP in lateral epicondylitis treatment using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values as a reference and to investigate if leukocyte content can influence the effectiveness of the therapy. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors searched the Medline and Scopus databases for studies on lateral epicondylitis and PRP therapy that used the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH); Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); and Mayo Clinic Performance Index (MAYO). The weighted arithmetic means for the PROMs were calculated at baseline (week 0) and follow-up weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 52, and 104. The mean differences in outcomes (ΔVAS, ΔDASH, ΔPRTEE, and ΔMAYO) were compared with the MCID values at each follow-up point. In addition, the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) versus leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was also compared. The Student A total of 26 studies were included in the analysis. After PRP injection, all PROM scores improved with time. The scores improved significantly from baseline to each follow-up time ( Based on comparisons with the MCID values of commonly used outcome scores, PRP seems to be an effective form of treatment for lateral epicondylitis. Both the LR- PRP and the LP- PRP systems were effective in the context of meeting the MCID.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains debatable.
Purpose
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP in lateral epicondylitis treatment using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values as a reference and to investigate if leukocyte content can influence the effectiveness of the therapy.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors searched the Medline and Scopus databases for studies on lateral epicondylitis and PRP therapy that used the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH); Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); and Mayo Clinic Performance Index (MAYO). The weighted arithmetic means for the PROMs were calculated at baseline (week 0) and follow-up weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 52, and 104. The mean differences in outcomes (ΔVAS, ΔDASH, ΔPRTEE, and ΔMAYO) were compared with the MCID values at each follow-up point. In addition, the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) versus leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was also compared. The Student
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 26 studies were included in the analysis. After PRP injection, all PROM scores improved with time. The scores improved significantly from baseline to each follow-up time (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Based on comparisons with the MCID values of commonly used outcome scores, PRP seems to be an effective form of treatment for lateral epicondylitis. Both the LR- PRP and the LP- PRP systems were effective in the context of meeting the MCID.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35425843
doi: 10.1177/23259671221086920
pii: 10.1177_23259671221086920
pmc: PMC9003647
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671221086920Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was funded by Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland (grant No. KNW-1-008/N/7/K). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Feb;55(2):279-85
pubmed: 26350485
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;48(12):945-6
pubmed: 24859180
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015 Apr;23(1):6-10
pubmed: 25920634
Musculoskelet Surg. 2020 Dec;104(3):285-294
pubmed: 31448392
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Aug;50(15):900-8
pubmed: 26392595
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018 Jan-Apr;26(1):2309499017749986
pubmed: 29320964
Int Orthop. 2015 Nov;39(11):2199-203
pubmed: 26224613
Rev Bras Ortop. 2016 Jan 13;51(1):90-5
pubmed: 26962506
J Orthop. 2019 Aug 14;16(6):496-499
pubmed: 31680739
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Aug 03;8:676033
pubmed: 34414200
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;48(12):952-6
pubmed: 24563387
J Orthop. 2016 Jan 22;13(1):10-4
pubmed: 26955228
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2130-4
pubmed: 21813443
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Aug 18;22(1):710
pubmed: 34407802
J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Jul;9(7):RC05-7
pubmed: 26393174
Arch Rheumatol. 2017 Oct 16;33(1):73-79
pubmed: 29900994
Arthroscopy. 2017 Jul;33(7):1320-1329
pubmed: 28433443
Transfusion. 2001 Oct;41(10):1217-24
pubmed: 11606819
J Hand Ther. 2016 Jan-Mar;29(1):81-8; quiz 88
pubmed: 26601561
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2014 Mar 18;6:12
pubmed: 24635909
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9103792
pubmed: 27610386
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;45(12):966-71
pubmed: 21406450
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Aug;40(4):500-10
pubmed: 25106016
Blood Transfus. 2018 Nov;16(6):502-513
pubmed: 30201082
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1200-8
pubmed: 21422467
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;42(2):463-71
pubmed: 23825183
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 May 17;99(10):809-819
pubmed: 28509821
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015 Apr;23(1):1-5
pubmed: 25920633
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Dec;135(12):1637-45
pubmed: 26318887
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2135-40
pubmed: 21846925
J Orthop Surg Res. 2016 Jan 25;11:17
pubmed: 26809347
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Aug;478(8):1892-1900
pubmed: 32732573
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 20;9(2):e028777
pubmed: 30787096
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Feb 1;94(3):277-85
pubmed: 22298061
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Aug;40(4):511-21
pubmed: 25106017
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Sep;94(9):696-706
pubmed: 25357145