Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Intra-articular injections of viscosupplements have been an option in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma is an experimental treatment in osteoarthritis. Previous studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma reduces osteoarthritis symptoms in similar proportions as viscosupplements. The aim of this study was to compare platelet-rich plasma versus viscosupplements in terms of symptoms’ relief and time to arthroplasty.

Material and Methods:

A total of 190 patients included in this retrospective study received either intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (94 patients) or hyaluronic acid (86 patients) between January 2014 and October 2017. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Visual Analogue Scale, and range of motion were measured before injection, at 15 days, 6 months, 12 months, and at last follow-up. We compared outcomes between these two groups using propensity score analysis for risk adjustment in multivariate analysis and for one-to-one matching.

Results:

Hyaluronic acid–treated patients experienced a higher arthroplasty rate (36.0% vs 5.3%, p < 0.001), lower range of motion, worse Visual Analogue Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, and increased risk of any arthroplasty occurrence (log-rank < 0.001) than platelet-rich plasma patients. Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed a tendency to decrease the risk of knee arthroplasty for the patients treated by platelet-rich plasma (hazard ratio = 0.23, 95% confidence interval, 0.05–1.05, p = 0.058). When the treatment method was adjusted for propensity score in the propensity score–matched pairs (n = 78), we found that platelet-rich plasma group still showed significant improvement over the hyaluronic acid group in arthroplasty rate (12.8% vs 41.0%, p = 0.010), Visual Analogue Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, but not in the range of motion, during the mean follow-up of 16.7 months.

Conclusion:

Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma associated with better outcomes than hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma might prolong the time to arthroplasty and provide a valid therapeutic option in selected patients with knee osteoarthritis not responding to conventional treatments. Further larger studies are needed to validate this promising treatment modality.

Keywords

Platelet-rich plasma viscosupplementation hyaluronic acid knee osteoarthritis arthroplasty orthopedics

Background and Aims

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease and a significant burden to the society (1). It is a debilitating and progressive disease that often leads to arthroplasty when non-operative treatments fail (1). The incidence of OA is increasing and studies predict that joint replacement surgery demand will grow rapidly (2 –4).

Non-operative treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weight loss, dietary supplements such as glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, topical agents, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids, and/or hyaluronic acid (HA) (5 –8). The role of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate is still debated (7, 8). None of these treatment options can modify the natural course of the disease, but can instead alleviate the symptoms (8). Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and/or HA viscosupplementations are often the last treatment options before arthroplasty.

Single intra-articular injection of HA is expensive and did not diminish the inflammatory process in the joint, causing sometimes adverse reactions (9 –11). Viscosupplementation seems to delay the need for joint replacement surgery up to 3.6 years compared to placebo, when multiple injections are given to patients, and the arthroplasty survivorship is higher in up to 5-year follow-up (12, 13).

Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatments aim to balance the pro-inflammatory and catabolic state in OA-affected joint toward anti-inflammatory and anabolic state, which is thought to reduce patients’ symptoms (14 –18). Effects of the intra-articular treatments usually decline after 6–12 months, but a trend of decline in pro-inflammatory cytokines has also been observed, further reinforcing the anti-inflammatory properties of PRP in OA symptoms’ alleviation (19, 20).

Both HA and PRP have demonstrated to provide pain relief; however, there is no consensus whether one of them provides better outcomes (19 –22). In addition, in the available studies, although some of them randomized, the comorbidities, types of OA, and treatment factors vary, which can affect the outcomes. Furthermore, the length of follow-up is very heterogeneous among the published studies, further complicating interpretation of these data (14, 15, 20, 21). Thus, the comparison of these two treatment modalities is difficult due to problems with forming comparable groups and to avoid confounding factors (20).

To overcome these issues, we analyzed our long-term results of knee injections using PRP and HA by adjusting the baseline differences between the two groups using propensity score analysis. We hypothesized that patients treated with PRP would have less arthroplasty operations and better outcome measurement scores than patients treated with HA.

Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate and compare the effects of PRP versus HA in the treatment of mild to moderate knee OA, in terms of arthroplasty avoidance and symptoms relief.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients who received knee injections of PRP or HA due to knee OA between January 2014 and October 2017 at the Welfare District of Forssa, Finland. The clinical investigation for this study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and individual informed consent was waived because the source data were de-identified.

The outcomes of patients who received knee injections of PRP (experimental group) were compared with those of patients who received HA due to knee OA (control group). Patients with major systemic disorders (hematological diseases, infections, immunodeficiency, active or fulminant rheumatoid disease), major symptomatic hip arthrosis at the same side of the knee, and pregnancy or possible pregnancy were excluded from the study. Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 90 years, knee OA diagnosed by radiographic imaging, pre-intervention pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of 30–100, and Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grade 1–3 OA. Patients who have received any other kind of intra-articular injections or oral medication other than paracetamol/NSAIDs were excluded from this study.

Patients were followed up with physical examination, comprehensive of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, VAS, and range of motion (ROM) of the knee.

Data were meticulously collected both from a prospectively maintained departmental database and from the patients’ electronic medical records. Patients’ demographics, treatment modality, frequency, and knee OA grades were analyzed, and clinical outcomes were directly compared between the experimental and control groups. Patients were assessed for their symptoms before injections, at 15 days after treatment, at 6 months, at 12 months, and/or at the last follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of any knee arthroplasty at follow-up after intra-articular injections. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events, VAS, WOMAC, and ROM of the knee.

The PRP group received three intra-articular injections at 10–14 days interval (defined as one treatment term). Commercial Glo PRP kit (GloFinn Corporation, Salo, Finland) was utilized in manufacturing of autologous PRP from patients’ whole blood. A specifically trained nurse drew up to 10 mL of patients’ whole blood in a syringe and the whole blood was centrifuged 5 min at 1200 r/min. Excess red blood cells (RBCs) were removed between centrifugations. The final product contained four to eight times higher concentration of platelets compared to the whole blood. One typical injection consisted of approximately 5 mL of PRP. Five patients received more than one treatment term and, thus, more than three injections, while three patients received less than three injections all together.

The HA group had received either single intra-articular injection or three injections at 1-week interval (defined as one treatment term). A total of 33 patients in the HA group received more than one treatment. HA products utilized were high-viscosity and high-molecular-weight products: Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc One^®, Naarden, Netherlands, 6,000,000 Da, 48 mg/6 mL injection) or sodium hyaluronate (Arthrum75^®, Chartres, France, ⩾2,800,000 Da, 75 mg/3 mL injection). Five patients received low-molecular-weight HA (Hyalgan^®, Abano Terme, Italy, 500,000–730,000 Da, 20 mg/2 mL injection). The follow-up was calculated from the time of the first injection until the last control.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± standard deviation. Pearson’s chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and the Mann–Whitney test or t-test were used for univariate analysis, as appropriate.

Logistic regression with enter selection was performed to calculate the likelihood of patients to be included in either the PRP group or HA group. Hosmer–Lemeshow’s test was used to assess the regression model fit. Variables included in the regression model are shown in Table 1. The calculated propensity score was employed for one-to-one matching as well as to adjust for other variables in estimating their impact on the postoperative outcomes (23). One-to-one propensity score matching between study groups was done using the nearest neighbor method and a caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score (24). Continuous outcomes were compared in the propensity score–matched (PSM) groups using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test as appropriate; differences in proportions were compared using the McNemar’s or binominal test as appropriate.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients who underwent intra-articular injections of PRP or HA for knee OA.

	Overall series			Propensity score–matched pairs
	PRP group	HA group	p-value^*	PRP group	HA group	p-value
	n = 94	n = 86	p-value^*	n = 39	n = 39	p-value
Mean age (years)^a	57.4 ± 10.3	65.7 ± 9.2	<0.001	62.3 ± 8.9	61.9 ± 8.4	0.866
Females	60 (63.8%)	50 (58.1%)	0.448	15 (38.5%)	15 (38.5%)	1.000
Mean BMI^a (kg/m²)	28.9 ± 4.5	29.7 ± 5.1	0.311	30.0 ± 5.5	29.4 ± 4.5	0.621
Obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²)^a	63 (67.0%)	39 (45.3%)	0.004	24 (61.5%)	22 (56.4%)	0.818
Comorbidity^a	31 (33.0%)	53 (61.6%)	<0.001	18 (46.2%)	17 (43.6%)	1.000
Diabetes^a	6 (6.4%)	23 (26.7%)	<0.001	5 (12.8%)	3 (7.7%)	0.711
Cardiac disease^a	10 (10.6%)	16 (18.6%)	0.142	7 (17.9%)	7 (17.9%)	1.000
Smokers^a	16 (17.0%)	6 (6.2%)	0.043	3 (7.7%)	3 (7.7%)	1.000
Bilateral	12 (12.8%)	16 (18.6%)	0.309	6 (15.4%)	8 (20.5%)	0.769
Flexion degree	130.3 ± 19.4	129.5 ± 18.4	0.776	126.8 ± 18.2	126.4 ± 21.3	0.932
Extension degree	88.6 ± 3.1	88.1 ± 3.4	0.389	88.7 ± 3.0	88.1 ± 4.1	0.430
Osteoarthritis Grade (Kellgren–Lawrence)	2.3 ± 0.6	2.4 ± 0.6	0.193	2.3 ± 0.7	2.4 ± 0.5	0.852
Grade 1	9	4		6	1
Grade 2	52	46		18	23
Grade 3	33	36		15	15
VAS pain score (0–100)	64.8 ± 17.4	69.3 ± 18.3	0.107	67.3 ± 16.8	69.7 ± 17.0	0.527
WOMAC overall	31.2 ± 13.0	36.7 ± 14.6	0.011	32.0 ± 12.4	34.0 ± 15.3	0.523
Follow-up (months)	16.9 ± 9.5	17.1 ± 7.3	0.860	16.7 ± 6.7	16.7 ± 9.2	1.000

BMI: body mass index; PRP: platelet-rich plasma; HA: hyaluronic acid; OA: osteoarthritis; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Variable included in regression model for estimation of the propensity score.

Bold values are statistically significant.

Long-term outcome was assessed by Kaplan–Meier’s methods in the overall series and in the propensity-matched pairs with the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards method with log minus log test. All p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were carried out using SPSS statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics, version 23, Armonk, NY).

Results

A total of 180 consecutive patients, treated for knee OA between 2014 and 2017, were included into this study. Of them, 94 patients (52%) received PRP injections while 86 (48%) received HA injections. Baseline characteristics are outlined in Table 1, showing significant difference in age, obesity prevalence, comorbidity, diabetes, and overall WOMAC score, which were significantly higher among HA group. Mean follow-up was similar in both groups and over 17 months. Similar adverse events occurred in both groups, while the number of injections was significantly higher among PRP group (PRP 3.2 ± 1.2 vs HA 1.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001).

The HA patients experienced a more than fourfold higher odds for arthroplasty rate (36.0% vs 5.3%) than the PRP patients (odds ratio (OR), 4.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9–10.1; p < 0.001, Fig. 1 and Table 2). Cox proportional hazard model including confounding factor identified by univariate analysis revealed a tendency to decrease the risk of knee arthroplasty for the patients treated by PRP (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05–1.05; p = 0.058; Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Kaplan–Meier curves of any arthroplasty occurrence for patients who underwent intra-articular injections of PRP or HA for knee OA.

Table 2

Outcomes of patients who underwent intra-articular injections of PRP or HA for knee OA.

	Overall series			Propensity score–matched pairs
	PRP group	HA group	p-value^*	PRP group	HA group	p-value^*
	n = 94	n = 86	p-value^*	n = 39	n = 39	p-value^*
Adverse events	4 (4.3%)	4 (4.1%)	1.000	1 (2.6%)	2 (5.1%)	1.000
Number of injections	3.2 ± 1.2	1.7 ± 0.9	<0.001	3.1 ± 0.7	2.0 ± 1.1	<0.001
Flexion degree (15 days)	134.4 ± 16.2	131.0 ± 17.3	0.229	129.7 ± 17.3	129.4 ± 19.6	0.927
Extension degree (15 days)	89.1 ± 2.3	88.3 ± 3.3	0.074	89.1 ± 2.3	88.2 ± 4.0	0.231
VAS pain score (0–100) (15 days)	39.2 ± 20.9	38.8 ± 28.3	0.907	38.8 ± 19.8	37.0 ± 25.5	0.729
WOMAC overall (15 days)	20.1 ± 11.7	25.3 ± 16.6	0.021	21.2 ± 12.2	22.6 ± 14.6	0.658
Flexion degree (6 months)	137.8 ± 15.7	131.4 ± 19.12	0.020	131.6 ± 18.6	131.0 ± 18.6	0.896
Extension degree (6 months)	89.9 ± 3.6	88.8 ± 3.9	0.061	90.3 ± 5.2	88.5 ± 3.8	0.087
VAS pain score (0–100) (6 months)	18.9 ± 23.5	45.5 ± 31.5	<0.001	26.3 ± 26.6	45.0 ± 32.4	0.007
WOMAC overall (6 months)	10.7 ± 12.3	27.3 ± 18.3	<0.001	15.7 ± 14.3	24.7 ± 17.6	0.016
Flexion degree (12 months)	137.9 ± 14.8	132.4 ± 17.4	0.048	130.8 ± 16.6	131.9 ± 19.3	0.814
Extension degree (12 months)	89.2 ± 2.1	88.3 ± 2.8	0.033	89.0 ± 2.4	88.4 ± 3.0	0.385
VAS pain score (0–100) (12 months)	21.1 ± 25.1	47.1 ± 29.4	<0.001	27.6 ± 28.2	42.7 ± 29.6	0.043
WOMAC overall (12 months)	11.9 ± 14.2	29.2 ± 18.4	<0.001	17.3 ± 17.3	25.3 ± 17.9	0.077
Flexion degree (last follow-up)	137.8 ± 15.4	130.4 ± 18.8	0.006	131.7 ± 17.8	129.9 ± 20.4	0.681
Extension degree (last follow-up)	89.2 ± 2.3	88.2 ± 2.9	0.025	88.7 ± 2.7	88.5 ± 2.8	0.687
VAS pain score (0–100) (last follow-up)	21.4 ± 25.0	52.7 ± 28.9	<0.001	29.5 ± 28.6	54.5 ± 27.7	<0.001
WOMAC overall last follow-up)	12.8 ± 14.8	32.0 ± 19.7	<0.001	19.2 ± 17.5	30.2 ± 20.0	0.012
Any knee arthroplasty	5 (5.3%)	31 (36.0%)	<0.001	5 (12.8%)	16 (41.0%)	0.010
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty	2 (2.1%)	18 (20.9%)	<0.001	2 (5.1%)	9 (23.1%)	0.047
Total knee arthroplasty	3 (3.2%)	13 (15.1%)	0.007	3 (3.8%)	7 (17.9%)	0.310

PRP: platelet-rich plasma; HA: hyaluronic acid; OA: osteoarthritis; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Bold values are statistically significant.

Fig. 2.

Cox proportional hazards estimates of knee arthroplasty according to intra-articular injections of HA or PRP for knee OA (HR = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.05–1.05, p = 0.058).

Among secondary outcomes, VAS pain score showed a statistically significant difference favoring PRP group at 6 months, at 1 year, and at last follow-up. Similarly, WOMAC overall scores and ROM were significantly better at all the treatment intervals among PRP patients (Table 2, Figs 3). Kaplan–Meier curves showed a statistically significant difference in risk of any arthroplasty between the two groups (Fig. 1).

Fig. 3.

Mean values of range of motion, VAS, and WOMAC in the overall series of PRP and HA groups. ROM values expressed in extension 0 to 90 degrees and flexion 0 to 155 degrees. Columns with a statistically significant difference are marked with asterisk (*).

The propensity score yielded 39 matched pairs without any differences in baseline characteristics (Table 1). The number of injections was still significantly higher among PRP group (3.1 ± 0.7 vs 2.0 ± 1.1, p < 0.001), while the arthroplasty rate was significantly higher among HA patients even when matched through the propensity score (PRP 5 vs HA 16, p = 0.010).

Furthermore, a statistically significant lower VAS pain score was observed in PRP group at 6 months, at 12 months, and at last follow-up. Similarly, WOMAC overall score showed a statistically significant difference at 6 months and at the last follow-up favoring PRP over HA patients (Table 2, Fig. 4). In contrast, we did not detect any statistically significant differences in ROM (extension and flexion degree) at any follow-up point in the PSM group (Table 2, Fig. 4). Kaplan–Meier curves showed a statistically significant difference in risk of any arthroplasty between the two matched paired groups (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4.

Mean values of range of motion, VAS, and WOMAC in the propensity score–matched pairs of PRP and HA groups. ROM values expressed in extension 0 to 90 degrees and flexion 0 to 155 degrees. Columns with a statistically significant difference are marked with asterisk (*).

Fig. 5.

Kaplan–Meier curves of any arthroplasty occurrence for patients who underwent intra-articular injections of PRP or HA for knee OA after propensity score matching.

Discussion

In our study, PRP outperformed HA in both the overall patient series and in the PSM series in symptom alleviation and in terms of avoiding the knee arthroplasty. Our results are consistent with the current literature, providing that PRP results in a statistically significant improvement in major pain and functional outcome measurements when compared to HA (15 –22, 25 –27). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report differences on the risk of arthroplasty between autologous PRP versus HA in knee OA, and the first PSM study to compare PRP to HA.

There has been only one previous study about arthroplasty delay involving PRP by Turajane et al. (22) including 60 patients. They compared intra-articular injections of autologous activated peripheral blood stem cells (AAPBSC) with PRP added growth factors, and HA along with arthroscopic mesenchymal stem cells versus the same combination without the added growth factors versus only intra-articular HA. They found that AAPBSC groups performed better than HA alone; however, they concluded that further research on the matter is required (22). Our study demonstrated a statistically significant difference in delaying knee arthroplasty favoring patients treated with autologous knee intra-articular injections of PRP versus high-molecular-weight HA.

There have been some reports indicating that PRP may not be superior to HA (19, 28). Filardo et al. (28) did not find any statistically significant differences between PRP and HA groups in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and VAS score (28). Cole et al. (19) found a statistically significant difference favoring PRP in IKDC and VAS score at 24 and 52 weeks. However, no statistically significant differences between PRP and HA in WOMAC pain score were found at any follow-up point (19). Possible confounding factors in the studies were use of frozen PRP surplus and statistically significant age difference between the groups, different PRP protocols utilized, and statistically significant difference of body mass index (BMI) between the groups (19, 28).

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that multiple intra-articular PRP injections are statistically significantly more effective in early knee OA than placebo, HA or single injections of PRP (14, 25 –27). A meta-analysis of RCTs by Shen et al. (20) concluded that PRP injections reduce knee pain and improve WOMAC scores better than other intra-articular injections (including HA, saline, corticosteroids, and ozone) up to 12 months (20). In our study, the VAS score showed similar results favoring the PRP group at 6 months, 12 months, and last follow-up, even after propensity score analysis. In addition, our WOMAC outcomes corroborate Cerza et al.’s study (14), which demonstrated superior clinical outcomes for PRP against HA with WOMAC scores. Our results verified the ones of Shen et al.’s (20) meta-analysis, but with a longer follow-up (20).

We did not find significant differences in ROM between the groups and this is probably due to the mild to moderate grade of OA in the study populations, as joint becomes truly rigid in the later stages of OA. Adverse effects were meticulously documented in our study, but we did not find serious adverse effects in either of the groups. The adverse effects recorded were mostly prolonged pain of the injection site (up to 5 days) or mild effusion post injection. Previous studies found no serious adverse effects in treating patients with intra-articular PRP injections (20, 25 –28).

Strengths of this study are the reasonable number of patients and relatively long follow-up. The propensity-score matching also improves the reliability of the study by reducing the demographic differences between the groups. The multivariable regression using propensity score analysis allowed the opportunity to control for selection bias and confounding by treatment indication. Particularly, this is important when there is a relatively large number of confounders compared with the number of outcomes (29). This unique approach of using propensity scores permitted us to consider not only the factors that affected outcome but also the factors that contributed to selection for the type of injection.

A limitation of this study is the retrospective view point. A true randomization of the patients would further reduce the possible bias concerning the patient selection. The PRP group in the overall series were younger, more obese, and smoked more often than HA groups. However, the HA group were older, had more comorbidity, and had greater initial WOMAC overall score. The PRP group received significantly more injections than the HA group, due to the treatment protocol inherent to these two different methods, and we consider it irrelevant. In addition, due to the lack of data, we have no information about the amount of oral medications used for arthrosis, although paracetamol and NSAIDs were mostly prescribed. Nonetheless, patients who have received any other kind of intra-articular injections or oral medication other than paracetamol/NSAIDs were excluded from this study.

We lost over 50% of the total patients enrolled to this study during the propensity score analysis. This is probably due to the physician leaning toward HA, rather than PRP, when treating heavily symptomatic OA patients. HA has a longer history and it has been successfully utilized before, which may lead to a bias of continued use in uncertain situations such as heavily symptomatic OA. Nevertheless, propensity score analysis has its pitfalls and weaknesses due to its methodology, as there might be some variables not included in the propensity score which might have affected the treatment selection and outcomes (29).

Reduction of symptoms and slowing the disease progression are the goals of treatment (30). A recent consensus statement included HA as one method in achieving the goals (30). In this view, PRP may prove to be a viable alternative to HA when patients are not yet ready for arthroplasty. A larger RCT study with longer follow-up is required to determine the length of arthroplasty delay. Moreover, defining the optimal PRP injection interval in order to provide the maximum efficacy would be of great interest. It is still unknown whether PRP is a disease-modifying treatment option in OA, as it is still a progressive disease that will eventually ruin the affected joint.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that PRP intra-articular knee injections compared to HA reduce the odds of knee arthroplasty in mild to moderate knee OA patients. A significant improvement in pain at 6 months and thereafter in the PRP group versus HA group was found. Similarly, a statistically significant improvement was also detected in WOMAC overall score at 6 months and at the last follow-up. A trend toward improvement in WOMAC overall was observed at 12 months. Our results suggest that autologous PRP may be an effective treatment for patients with mild to moderate knee OA.

The authors suggest that PRP may be used as an alternative to high-molecular-weight HA in mild to moderate graded symptomatic knee OA as it seems to reduce the odds of early arthroplasty and alleviate symptoms better than other injection therapies. In our experience, three injections given at 2-week interval as one treatment term may be optimal. Treatment terms might be repeated when symptoms arise again or until symptoms are not alleviated. Arthroplasty should be considered when neither HA nor PRP reduce the symptoms. Longer follow-up studies to further clarify the role of PRP in arthroplasty delay are warranted.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

S. Giordano

References

Cross

Smith

Hoy

, et al: The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: Estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73(7):1323–1330.

Patel

Pavlou

Mujica-Mota

, et al: The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: A comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(8):1076–1081.

Kurtz

Ong

Lau

, et al: Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:780–785.

Mont

Issa

: Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: Updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96(8):624–630.

Strand

McIntyre

Beach

, et al: Safety and efficacy of US-approved viscosupplements for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, saline-controlled trials. J Pain Res 2015;8:217–228.

Riecke

Christensen

, et al: Comparing two low-energy diets for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms in obese patients: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18(6):746–754.

Nelson

Allen

Golightly

, et al: A systematic review of recommendations and guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis: The chronic osteoarthritis management initiative of the U.S. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2014;43(6):701–712.

McAlindon

Bannuru

Sullivan

, et al: OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22(6):890–891.

Chevalier

Jerosch

Goupille

, et al: Single, intra-articular treatment with 6 mL hylan G-F 20 in patients with symptomatic primary osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(1):113–119.

10.

Kirchner

Marshall

: A double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing alternate forms of high molecular weight hyaluronan for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14(2):154–162.

11.

Petrella

: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of intraarticular hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol 2006;33(5):951–956.

12.

Altman

Lim

Steen

, et al: Hyaluronic acid injections are associated with delay of total knee replacement surgery in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Evidence from a large U.S. PLoS ONE 2015;10(12):e0145776.

13.

Delbarre

Amor

Bardoulat

, et al: Do intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections delay total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis—A Cox model analysis. PLoS ONE 2017;12(11):e0187227.

14.

Cerza

Carni

Carcangiu

, et al: Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular infiltration in the treatment of gonarthrosis. Am J Sports Med 2012;40(12):2822–2827.

15.

Filardo

Kon

Buda

, et al: Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections for the treatment of degenerative cartilage lesions and osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011;19(4):528–535.

16.

Kon

Buda

Filardo

, et al: Platelet-rich plasma: Intra-articular knee injections produced favorable results on degenerative cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010;18(4):472–479.

17.

Kon

Mandelbaum

Buda

, et al: Platelet-rich plasma intraarticular injection versus hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation as treatments for cartilage pathology: From early degeneration to osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy 2011;27:1490–1501.

18.

Spakova

Rosocha

Lacko

, et al: Treatment of knee joint osteoarthritis with autologous platelet-rich plasma in comparison with hyaluronic acid. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012;91(5):411–417.

19.

Cole

Karas

Hussey

, et al: Hyaluronic acid versus platelet-rich plasma: A prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes and effects on intra-articular biology for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2017;45(2):339–346.

20.

Shen

Yuan

Chen

, et al: The temporal effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain and physical function in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2017;12(1):16.

21.

Duymus

Mutlu

Dernek

, et al: Choice of intra-articular injection in treatment of knee osteoarthritis: Platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid or ozone options. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017;25(2):485–492.

22.

Turajane

Chaveewanakorn

Fongsarun

, et al: Avoidance of total knee arthroplasty in early osteoarthritis of the knee with intra-articular implantation of autologous activated peripheral blood stem cells versus hyaluronic acid: A randomized controlled trial with differential effects of growth factor addition. Stem Cells Int 2017;2017:8925132.

23.

Austin

: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46(3):399–424.

24.

Austin

: Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011;10(2):150–161.

25.

Gormeli

Ataoglu

, et al: Multiple PRP injections are more effective than single injections and hyaluronic acid in knees with early osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017;25(3):958–965.

26.

Patel

Dhillon

Aggarwal

, et al: Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: A prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sports Med 2013;41(2):356–364.

27.

Smith

: Intra-articular autologous conditioned plasma injections provide safe and efficacious treatment for knee osteoarthritis: An FDA-sanctioned, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 2016;44(4):884–891.

28.

Filardo

DiMatteo

DiMartino

, et al: Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections show no superiority versus viscosupplementation: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2015;43(7):1575–1582.

29.

Lonjon

Porcher

Ergina

, et al: Potential pitfalls of reporting and bias in observational studies with propensity score analysis assessing a surgical procedure: A methodological systematic review. Ann Surg 2017;265(5):901–909.

30.

Bruyére

Cooper

Pelletier

, et al: A consensus statement on the European Society for Clinical and Economical Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis—From evidence-based medicine to the real-life setting. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016;45(4 Suppl):S3–11.

Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid injections for knee osteoarthritis: a propensity-score analysis

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Material and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Background and Aims

Material and Methods

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References