Sathish Muthu1, Sandeep Patel2, Preethi Selvaraj3, Madhan Jeyaraman4. 1. Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 3. Department of Community Medicine, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM University Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review & Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. RESULTS: We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures. CONCLUSION: PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review & Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. RESULTS: We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures. CONCLUSION: PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.
Authors: Jason L Dragoo; Hillary J Braun; Jennah L Durham; Bethany A Ridley; Justin I Odegaard; Richard Luong; Steven P Arnoczky Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Maciej Dejnek; Helena Moreira; Sylwia Płaczkowska; Ewa Barg; Paweł Reichert; Aleksandra Królikowska Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.964