Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained attention as a therapeutic option for knee osteoarthritis; however, its efficacy varies widely. Leukocytes in PRP raise the concern of aggravating proinflammatory activity. To date, PRP has rarely been investigated with regard to leukocyte concentration.

Purpose:

To provide clinical evidence of the intra-articular injection of PRPs containing different leukocyte concentrations.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. PRP was classified into leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LR-PRP). Clinical outcomes including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and adverse reactions were evaluated. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used for quality assessment.

Results:

Included were 32 studies with an evidence level between 1 and 4. Both LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed improvements above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in VAS pain score. No significant intergroup difference was seen at 3, 6, or 12 months of follow-up. Regarding function, both LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed improvements above the MCID in the WOMAC and IKDC scores, with no significant difference between the groups. Adverse reactions for pain were significantly higher in LR-PRP than in LP-PRP (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.10; P = .01). After intra-articular PRP injection, LR-PRP showed a significantly higher rate of swelling than LP-PRP (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.99; P = .02). The mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score of the included studies was 18.6 (range, 10-24).

Conclusion:

Intra-articular PRP injection resulted in improvements above the MCID in terms of pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis up to 12 months. The risk of local adverse reactions appeared to be increased after LR-PRP compared with LP-PRP injection. The findings of this review can support the potential use of intra-articular PRP injection for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. In clinical application, clinicians need to consider selecting a specific type of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

Keywords

knee osteoarthritis clinical outcome platelet-rich plasma leukocyte

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained attention as an alternative biological treatment option because it contains several anabolic and related factors.⁵⁵ Several in vitro and in vivo studies have shown beneficial effects of PRP, including an improved healing process,^{18,34,43,46,52} anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects,^1,3,73 and chondropromoting and chondroprotective effects.^4,20,40,42 Despite increasing information regarding PRP and its use in the clinical setting for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), its efficacy remains controversial.^8,15,77

The presence of leukocytes in PRP raises a concern due to their well-known proinflammatory activity.⁴⁵ Some in vitro studies have reported that a high leukocyte concentration within PRP could increase the expression of catabolic cascades and inflammatory markers such as interleukin 1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor α.^5,47,48 Similar results have been shown in in vivo animal studies.^18,49 In this regard, some studies have suggested that leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) would be more suitable for the treatment of knee OA. In contrast, despite the increase of proinflammatory markers in leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP), some in vitro studies have shown that LR-PRP can provide beneficial effects to knee OA via the interaction between platelets and neutrophils. Platelets in association with neutrophils can interfere with the conversion of leukotrienes into lipoxin, thereby promoting the resolution phase of the healing cascade.^37,56 In addition, 1 study reported the production of large amounts of vascular endothelial growth factor from platelets by neutrophils.¹⁷ Moreover, a 5-fold increase in the anti-inflammatory markers IL-4 and IL-10 has been reported.² Despite concomitant anabolic and catabolic effects of leukocytes, the effects of their concentrations in PRP on clinical outcomes have not been well investigated.

Therefore, we sought to provide evidence about the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of intra-articular injection of PRP in patients with knee OA based on leukocyte concentration, which was assessed meticulously for categorization into LP-PRP and LR-PRP.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed based on the Cochrane Review Methods and performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.⁵⁰ The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration No. CRD42020158791).

Literature Search

A systematic literature search was performed of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus databases up to September 1, 2019. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. A combination of the following keywords was used in the title, abstract, Medical Subject Headings, and keyword fields: “knee,” “osteoarthritis,” “platelet-rich plasma,” and “leukocyte.” The research question and inclusion criteria were established a priori. Manual searches were performed for articles that could have been missed in the electronic search. The bibliographies of the initially retrieved studies were cross-checked to identify additional relevant articles. Two investigators (Y-B.P. and J-H.K.) independently screened the abstracts and titles of the retrieved studies; those that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to full-text review. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved via discussion.

Study Selection

The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) all levels of evidence; (2) cohort of patients diagnosed with knee OA; (3) intervention consisting of intra-articular injection of PRP; (3) comparison of LP-PRP versus LR-PRP; (4) outcomes including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and adverse reactions; and (5) a full report of parameters, including means, standard deviations (SDs), and sample numbers. We excluded studies not clearly reporting parameters; those not clearly reporting the follow-up period for clinical outcomes; animal, biomechanical, and cadaveric studies; technical notes; letters to the editor; expert opinions; review articles; meta-analyses; and scientific conference abstracts. In addition, if studies with similar data of different follow-up periods at the same institutions were found, previous studies with shorter follow-up were excluded to avoid duplicates.

Definitions of LP-PRP and LR-PRP

According to previous studies,^15,39,64 the PAW classification system (absolute number of Platelets, manner in which platelet Activation occurs, and presence or absence of White cells) was used to define LP-PRP and LR-PRP. LP-PRP was defined as PRP with a leukocyte concentration equal to or less than baseline of whole blood, whereas LR-PRP was defined as PRP with a leukocyte concentration greater than baseline of whole blood.¹⁶ After thorough review of the methods section of each article, the leukocyte concentration in the final PRP product was identified. When insufficient information regarding leukocyte concentration was provided, the study authors were contacted, or the manufacturer documentation for the PRP system was reviewed to obtain detailed information about leukocyte concentration. Accordingly, all PRP preparations in the included studies could be categorized into LP-PRP or LR-PRP.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two investigators (Y-B.P. and J-H.K.) independently extracted data from each article using a predefined data extraction form. Any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved via discussion. The following data were extracted: first author, year of publication, country, number of patients and knees, patient age, patient sex, patient body mass index, OA severity, follow-up period, main findings of each study, information about PRP preparation (preparation system, spinning frequency, and activation status), details of the interventions (dose, injection frequency, interval, and fresh or frozen), mean platelet and leukocyte concentration of the PRP injection, PROMs including means and SDs, and adverse reactions. For PROMs, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), 12-Item Short From Healthy Survey (SF-12), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Outcome Measurement for Rheumatology Committee and Osteoarthritis–Research Society International Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative (OMERACT-OARSI), and Knee Society Scale (KSS) were aggregated from pooled studies; however, Lysholm score, KOOS, SF-36, OMERACT-OARSI, and KSS were excluded because of a lack of sufficient studies for meaningful analysis (<2 studies for each group). For adverse reactions, local and related reactions after the intra-articular injection such as pain and swelling were aggregated from pooled studies; however, systemic reactions and unrelated reactions were excluded because of heterogeneity.

Assessment of Methodologic Quality

Two investigators (Y-B.P. and J-H.K.) independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.⁶⁹ The maximum score is 24 for comparative studies and 16 for noncomparative studies according to MINORS checklists.⁶⁹ Any discrepancies in scores between the 2 reviewers were resolved via discussion.

Statistical Analysis

The main outcomes of this meta-analysis were the mean differences (MDs) in improvement of PROMs and odds ratios (ORs) of adverse reactions between LP-PRP and LR-PRP intra-articular injection in patients with knee OA. In each study and for continuous outcome variables including WOMAC, VAS score, and IKDC subjective score, we calculated the treatment effect from the difference between the pre- and postintervention changes in mean and SD in the LP-PRP and LR-PRP groups for the reported follow-up periods. For continuous variables, we calculated MDs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous outcome variables as adverse reactions, we calculated ORs with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was determined by estimating the proportion of interstudy inconsistencies because of actual differences between studies rather than differences due to random error or chance using the I² statistic, where 25% was considered low heterogeneity, 50% was moderate heterogeneity, and 75% was high heterogeneity.³²

Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool the outcomes across the included studies. Forest plots were used to show outcomes, the pooled estimate of effect, and the overall summary effect of each study and were constructed using Open Meta-Analyst (Brown University; http://www.cebm.brown.edu/openmeta). Additional analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat) and R statistical software Version 3.4.0 (the metaphor Package: a Meta-Analysis Package for R; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The standardized MD and standardized variance were calculated from the weighted estimates, standard errors, and sample size of each cohort using the logit method.^75,76 Summary ORs and 95% CIs were calculated based on the standardized MD and standardized variance (George Wilson University). Publication bias was not assessed in this study because it was not generally necessary if there were <10 studies in a comparison. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Identification of Studies

vAn initial electronic search yielded 212 studies, and an additional 18 studies were identified through manual searching. After the removal of 116 duplicate studies, 114 remained. After screening of the titles and abstracts and reading of the full texts, 32 studies were finally included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Details about study identification, inclusion, and exclusion criteria are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram for the identification and selection of studies included in this meta-analysis.

Study Characteristics and Methodologic Quality Assessment

Of the 32 identified studies, only 1 study²³ performed a direct comparison between LP-PRP and LR-PRP. A total of 22 studies^＃ involving 1070 patients with 1162 knees evaluated LP-PRP results, whereas 11 studies^** involving 593 patients with 628 knees evaluated LR-PRP results. Details of the studies, including sample size, patient characteristics, OA severity, PROMs, follow-up period, results, and MINORS score, are presented in Appendix Table A1. This systematic review included the studies from level of evidence I to IV. Details about PRP preparation and injection protocol as well as platelet and leukocyte concentrations in the PRP injection are summarized in Appendix Table A2. The methodologic quality assessment using MINORS revealed that the pooled mean MINORS score of the LP-PRP group was 18.6 ± 4.6 (range, 11-24) including 16 comparative studies^†† (median MINORS, 21.5; range, 17-24) and 6 noncomparative studies^{7,11,24,28,30,61} (median MINORS, 11.5; range, 11-14), whereas the pooled mean MINORS score of the LR-PRP group was 18.6 ± 3.8 (range, 10-23) including 9 comparative studies^‡‡ (median MINORS, 20; range, 17-23) and 2 noncomparative studies^44,68 (median MINORS, 12; range, 10-14).

VAS Score

A total of 2 studies^35,67 of LP-PRP and 4 studies^21,38,58,71 of LR-PRP provided relevant data on VAS at 3 months. At this assessment point, the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 40.82; 95% CI, 36.90-44.74) and LR-PRP (MD, 37.69; 95% CI, 24.98-50.40; P = .64). A total of 8 studies^{6,7,12,23,24,30,35,57} of LP-PRP and 8 studies^{21
–23,26,29,36,38,71} of LR-PRP provided data on VAS at 6 months, at which point the pooled MD of improvement at 6 months was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 22.33; 95% CI, 12.79-31.87) and LR-PRP (MD, 23.85; 95% CI, 15.83-31.86; P = .81). A total of 5 studies^{6,12,23,25,30} on LP-PRP and 4 studies^21
–23,38 on LR-PRP provided VAS results at 12 months. At this point, the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 16.77; 95% CI, 10.82-22.71) and LR-PRP (MD, 28.92; 95% CI, 21.79-36.04; P = .06) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Forest plots of studies showing improvements of visual analog scale (VAS) scores in patients with knee osteoarthritis after intra-articular injection of leukocyte-poor (LP) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP at (A) 3 months, (B) 6 months, and (C) 12 months. Squares represent the mean improvement in the VAS, with the size of the square being proportional to the sample size.

Total WOMAC Score

We found that 5 studies^{10,11,41,67,70} on LP-PRP and 5 studies^{21,38,44,68,71} on LR-PRP provided relevant data on total WOMAC score at 3 months. At this assessment point, the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 24.05; 95% CI, 11.95-36.14) and LR-PRP (MD, 25.03; 95% CI, 12.44-37.63; P = .91). A total of 11 studies^§§ on LP-PRP and 5 studies^{21,38,44,68,71} on LR-PRP provided data at 6 months, showing that the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 20.93; 95% CI, 16.46-25.40) and LR-PRP (MD, 20.73; 95% CI, 12.78-28.68; P = .97). A total of 6 studies^{6,30,41,62,70,74} on LP-PRP and 3 studies^21,38,44 on LR-PRP provided WOMAC data at 12 months, at which point the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 18.04; 95% CI, 10.61-25.47) and LR-PRP (MD, 18.18; 95% CI, 13.86-22.50; P = .97) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Forest plots of studies showing the improvement of total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score in patients with knee osteoarthritis after intra-articular injection of leukocyte-poor (LP) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP at (A) 3 months, (B) 6 months, and (C) 12 months. Squares represent the mean improvement in the total WOMAC score, with the size of the square being proportional to the sample size.

IKDC Subjective Score

A total of 4 studies^12,23,24,41 on LP-PRP and 4 studies^22,23,26,36 on LR-PRP provided relevant data on IKDC subjective score at 6 months. At this follow-up point, the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 17.19; 95% CI, 14.04-20.33) and LR-PRP (MD, 16.93; 95% CI, 11.25-22.62; P = .94). A total 5 studies^{12,23,24,31,41} on LP-PRP and 2 studies^22,23 on LR-PRP provided IKDC data at 12 months, at which point the pooled MD of improvement was not significantly different between LP-PRP (MD, 17.74; 95% CI, 10.61-24.88) and LR-PRP (MD, 15.70; 95% CI, 11.79-19.62; P = .62) (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Forest plots of studies showing the improvement of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score in patients with knee osteoarthritis after intra-articular injection of leukocyte-poor (LP) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP at (A) 6 months and (B) 12 months. Squares represent the mean improvement in the IKDC subjective score, with the size of the square being proportional to the sample size.

Adverse Reaction

For pain after intra-articular PRP injection, a total of 14 studies^∥∥ on LP-PRP and 6 studies^{23,29,36,58,68,71} on LR-PRP provided relevant data. The mean adverse reaction rates for pain were significantly higher for LR-PRP (0.152; 95% CI, 0.050-0.255) than LP-PRP (0.018; 95% CI, 0.007-0.029) (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P = .01). For swelling after intra-articular PRP injection, a total of 14 studies^∥∥ on LP-PRP and 6 studies^{23,29,36,58,68,71} on LR-PRP were analyzed. The mean adverse reaction rates for swelling were significantly higher for LR-PRP (0.098; 95% CI, 0.027-0.169) than for LP-PRP (0.014; 95% CI, 0.003-0.024) (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.22-1.99; P = .02) (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Forest plots of studies showing the adverse reaction rate after injection of leukocyte-poor (LR) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and leukocyte-rich (LP) PRP in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Squares represent the mean adverse reaction rate in (A) pain and (B) swelling, with the size of the square being proportional to the sample size. Ev/Trt, event/total sample size.

Discussion

The most important findings of this study were that the intra-articular injection of LP-PRP showed lower adverse reactions than did LR-PRP in knee OA. Among the adverse reactions, pain and swelling after the intra-articular injection of PRP were significantly more common in the LR-PRP group. Although no significant difference was noted between LP-PRP and LR-PRP, pain was significantly improved after the intra-articular PRP injection. Furthermore, our meta-analysis found significant improvement in functional outcomes after intra-articular PRP injection regardless of leukocyte concentration. These results support the potential use of intra-articular PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA. These findings may also help clinicians select a specific PRP type for knee OA.

This meta-analysis revealed that intra-articular PRP injections induced significant pain improvement regardless of leukocyte concentration. The LP-PRP and LR-PRP groups of included studies showed improvement above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, with a VAS score of 19.9 at 3 months without a study in LR-PRP group,⁵⁸ which showed below the MCID.⁷² At the 6-month follow-up, 66.7% (6/9) of studies for LP-PRP^{7,12,30,35,57} and 77.8% (7/9) of studies for LR-PRP^{21
–23,26,36,38,71} showed improvement above the MCID in pain, with a VAS score of 19.9.⁷² At the 12-month follow-up, however, only 42.9% (3/7) of studies for LP-PRP^23,25,30 showed an improvement above the MCID, whereas all (4/4) studies for LR-PRP^21
–23,38 showed an improvement above the MCID in pain with a VAS of 19.9. The MCID is known to be influenced by the initial pain severity.⁷² The low baseline showed a low MCID for pain. In this review, the baseline VAS of LP-PRP (41 points) was lower than that of LR-PRP (56 points). Therefore, an improvement of <19.9 in the LP-PRP group at 12-month follow-up could indicate minimal clinical improvement. Three recent meta-analyses reported that PRP injections showed significant pain improvement in knee OA versus hyaluronic acid (HA) or placebo for 12 months of follow-up.^8,15,66 On the contrary, a recent meta-analysis reported a limited efficacy of PRP for pain reduction in knee OA.⁷⁷ Although VAS pain scores showed no significant differences at 3- and 6-month follow-up, WOMAC pain scores differed significantly at 12 months of follow-up. A previous meta-analysis that included only 4 studies evaluating VAS pain did not consider the MCID of the VAS pain score.⁷⁷ As mentioned, VAS pain scores in knee OA showed improvements above the MCID in this meta-analysis. With these points in mind, intra-articular PRP injections would be an option for pain relief in knee OA for 12 months.

The results of this review revealed that intra-articular PRP injections showed significant functional improvement in WOMAC and IKDC scores regardless of leukocyte concentration. Most included studies (WOMAC score 81.8% and 66.7% in LP-PRP, 100% and 66.7% in LR-PRP at 6 and 12 months, respectively) showed that the improvements in WOMAC at 6 and 12 months were greater than the MCID of 11.5.⁷² WOMAC is a validated evaluation system for assessing pain and function in knee OA.^13,72 Although WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function scores were not evaluated separately, improvements in WOMAC total scores were relatively large (95% CI, 16.46-25.40 and 10.61-25.47 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for LP-PRP; 12.78-28.68 and 11.79-19.62 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for LR-PRP). Consistent with this result, a recent meta-analysis of comparisons between PRP and HA reported significant efficacy of PRP in functional improvement compared with HA at 12-month follow-up.¹⁵ IKDC was not a specific evaluation tool for knee OA, but IKDC subjective score has long been used to evaluate mixed knee pathologies.^13,14,27,53 All included studies of LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed improvement above the MCID of 6.7³³ in mixed knee pathologies at 6 and 12 months (95% CI, 14.04-20.33 and 10.61-24.88, respectively, for LP-PRP; 11.25-22.62 and 11.79-19.62, respectively, for LR-PRP). The improvement in IKDC scores after PRP injection in knee OA was greater than the MCID of IKDC scores in knee injuries of anterior cruciate ligament, meniscus, and cartilage, which indicated that PRP injection had the ability to improve knee status. Based on these findings, this review suggests that intra-articular PRP injections could be a viable therapeutic option for functional improvement in patients with knee OA.

This review revealed that LP-PRP and LR-PRP showed similar improvements in pain and function in patients with knee OA over 12 months of follow-up. In a previous meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 prospective comparative studies, LP-PRP showed significantly better WOMAC scores than did HA, but LR-PRP did not.⁶⁴ However, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between LP-PRP and LR-PRP. These findings indicated that LP-PRP resulted in greater improvements in clinical outcomes than did LR-PRP. Apart from different improvements reported in previous meta-analyses, improvements in pain and functional scores in this review did not differ between LP-PRP and LR-PRP. These differences in results may come from different included studies (9 in the previous review, 32 in this review). To the best of our knowledge, no RCT has compared LP-PRP and LR-PRP in knee OA, and only 1 prospective comparative study has compared LP-PRP and LR-PRP. Filardo et al²³ reported similar improvements in pain and function between LP-PRP and LR-PRP over 12 months. The clinical superiority of LP-PRP versus LR-PRP remains controversial, as the role of leukocytes has been a subject of debate because of their positive as well as negative properties.³⁷ Leukocytes not only play a role in proinflammatory activity but also interact with platelets and other cell types to drive the resolution phase of the healing cascade.^37,54 Neutrophils secrete cytokines for the chemotaxis of monocytes, which are crucial to induce the inflammatory process required to initiate the healing process, called “regenerative inflammation.”^37,59 In addition, IL-1 receptor antagonist protein, thought to be more abundant in LR-PRP, may be responsible for the beneficial effects of the healing process because it blocks IL-1, decreases the activity of matrix metalloproteinase, and reduces the risk of cartilage degradation.^9,51 These potential benefits of leukocytes in LR-PRP, including IL-1 receptor antagonist protein and monocytes, might compensate for the catabolic effect of leukocytes, and even showed similar clinical efficacy such as pain and functional improvement compared with LP-PRP.

Interestingly, the incidence of adverse reactions after PRP injections was associated with leukocyte concentration. The incidence of adverse reactions after PRP injections compared with HA or placebo remains controversial. Previous reviews have suggested that intra-articular PRP did not increase adverse reactions compared with HA or saline injections.^8,15,77 In contrast, 1 review reported that PRP injections resulted in a higher incidence of adverse reactions than did HA.⁶⁴ To the best of our knowledge, few studies have evaluated adverse reactions after PRP injections according to leukocyte concentration. Riboh et al⁶⁴ concluded that adverse reactions appeared to be a class reaction of PRP that was not dependent on leukocyte concentration. Inconsistent with the previous meta-analysis, our study showed a significant difference in the incidence of adverse reaction after PRP injections according to leukocyte concentration. Adverse reactions included pain and swelling after injection. Theoretically, the presence of leukocytes in PRP increases proinflammatory activity by the expression of catabolic cascades and release of inflammatory markers.^5,45,47,48 In addition, some in vivo studies have reported that PRP containing leukocytes also contained metalloproteinase 2, 3, and 9 and showed greater inflammatory reactions after injections.^18,60 Moreover, only 1 clinical study comparing LP-PRP and LR-PRP reported that knees receiving LR-PRP showed more swelling and pain reaction immediately after the injections.¹⁸ Therefore, we believe that the proinflammatory activity of leukocytes could exacerbate pain and swelling immediately after LR-PRP injections.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, this study included not only RCTs but also prospective comparative studies and case series, resulting in some inherent heterogeneity attributed to uncontrolled bias. In addition, only 1 study directly compared LP-PRP and LR-PRP in knee OA, which is a major limitation of this review.⁶⁴ Because we were unable to perform meta-analysis of studies with direct comparison, we tried to include several studies evaluating LP-PRP or LR-PRP in knee OA without methodologic flaws. Second, heterogeneity in injection frequency, injection volume, and blood draw time was not considered in this review. The main purpose of this review was to compare clinical outcomes between LP-PRP and LR-PRP in patients with knee OA. The optimal injection volume and frequency should be investigated in further studies. Third, PAW classification was applied to define LP-PRP and LR-PRP in this study. The Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics guideline has recently been introduced and has shown strength considering all kinds of leukocytes including lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophils. However, it was difficult to perform this review using this guideline because of lack of data in the included studies. Fourth, we noted heterogeneity in the evaluation of degeneration level of the knee joint. The Kellgren-Lawrence classification and the Ahlbäck classification criteria are commonly used to evaluate joint degeneration level, but the 2 criteria have different descriptions of grades. Given this variance, the association between the OA radiographic severity and PRP injection efficacy is difficult to conclude.

The findings of this review can support a potential use of intra-articular PRP injection for the treatment of knee OA. In clinical application, clinicians need to consider selecting the leukocyte concentration of PRP for knee OA. However, these issues should be investigated in further studies to increase the efficacy of the clinical application of PRP.

Conclusion

Regardless of leukocyte concentration, intra-articular PRP injection resulted in improvements above the MCID in terms of pain and function in patients with knee OA up to 12 months. LR-PRP appears to pose an increased risk of local adverse reactions compared with LP-PRP injection.

Footnotes

Final revision submitted December 22, 2020; accepted January 25, 2021.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (No. NRF-2019R1G1A1009620). 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.

Notes

Appendix

TABLE A2

Details of PRP Treatment and Mean Platelet and Leukocyte Concentrations in Included Studies ^a

Lead Author (Year)	Preoperation	Spinning	Activation	PRP Injection			Fresh or Frozen	Mean Concentration ^b
Lead Author (Year)	Preoperation	Spinning	Activation	Dose, mL	Times	Interval	Fresh or Frozen	Platelet	Leukocyte
LP-PRP Group
Buendia-Lopez (2018)⁶	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	1	—	Fresh	3.87 times (1095.0 ± 23.2)	NR
Burchard (2019)⁷	ACP	Double	None	5	3	1 wk	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	Nearly 85% of WBCs were removed. ^c
Cerza (2012)¹⁰	ACP	Single	None	5.5	4	1 wk	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	Nearly 85% of WBCs were removed. ^c
Chinder (2018)¹¹	Custom	Triple	NR	6	1	—	Fresh	NR	NR
Cole (2017)¹²	ACP	Single	None	4	3	1 wk	Fresh	1.73 ± 0.05 (SE) times	0.79 ± 0.11
Duif (2015)¹⁹	ACP	Single	None	4.2 ± 0.8	1	—	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	Nearly 85% of WBCs were removed. ^c
Filardo (2012)²³ (LP)	Custom	Single	CaCl₂	5	3	3 wk	Fresh	1.5 times (315.0)	0
Gobbi (2012)²⁴	Regen ACR-C	Single	None	4	2	4 wk	Fresh	NR	NR
Gobbi (2015)²⁵ (single spin)	Regen ACR-C	Single	NR	4	3	4 wk	Fresh	2 times	>95% of WBCs were removed.
Gobbi (2015)²⁵ (double spin)	Regen ACR-C	Double	NR	4	3	4 wk	Fresh	2 times	>95% of WBCs were removed.
Guillibert (2019)²⁸	Custom	Single	NR	8.8 ± 1.1	1	—	Fresh	1.4 ± 0.4 times (288.0 ± 95.0)	0.1 ± 0.1 times (0.22 ± 0.27)
Halpern (2013)³⁰	MTF Cascade system	Single	CaCl₂	6	1	—	Fresh	1.3-1.7 times ^c	1.1 ± 0.2 ^c
Hart (2013)³¹	Custom	Single	NR	6	6	1 wk	Fresh	2.0-2.5 times (4.59 ± 26.5)	0.5 times ^c
Joshi Jubert (2017)³⁵	Custom	Double	None	4	1	—	Fresh	(990, range, 340-1540)	0.6; range, 0.1-1.8
Lin (2019)⁴¹	RegenKit-THT	Single	NR	5.0 ± 0.5	3	1 wk	Fresh	1.81 ± 0.34 times	Nearly 70% of WBCs were removed.
Patel (2013)⁵⁷ (2 PRP)	Custom	Single	CaCl₂	8	2	3 wk	Fresh	(310.1)	0
Patel (2013)⁵⁷ (single PRP)	Custom	Single	CaCl₂	8	1	—	Fresh	(310.1)	0
Raeissadat (2013)⁶¹	Rooyagen kit	Double	None	4-6	2	4 wk	Fresh	1st: 5.6 ± 1.2 times 2nd: 5.4 ± 1.6 times	1st: 0.22 ± 0.17 2nd: 0.69 ± 0.11
Raeissadat (2015)⁶²	Rooyagen kit	Double	None	4-6	2	4 wk	Fresh	1st: 5.2 ± 1.5 times 2nd: 4.8 ± 1.8 times	1st: 0.78 ± 1.13 2nd: 0.81 ± 0.83
Rayegani (2014)⁶³	Rooyagen kit	Double	None	4-6	2	4 wk	Fresh	1st: 5.7 ± 1.2 times 2nd: 5.6 ± 1.7 times	1st: 0.24 ± 0.20 2nd: 0.39 ± 0.49
Sanchez (2012)⁶⁵	PRGF-Endoret	Single	CaCl₂	8	3	1 wk	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	0 ^c
Simental-Mendia (2016)⁶⁷	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	3	3	2 wk	Fresh	2.04 times (513.3 ± 189.3)	0.08 times (0.52 ± 0.46)
Smith (2016)⁷⁰	ACP	Single	None	3-8	3	1 wk	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	Nearly 85% of WBCs were removed. ^c
Vaquerizo (2013)⁷⁴	PRGF-Endoret	Single	CaCl₂	8	3	1 wk	Fresh	2-3 times ^c	0 ^c
LR-PRP Group
Duymus (2017)²¹	Ycellbio PRP kit	Double	None	5	2	4 wk	Fresh	7-9 times ^c (>1500)	3-4 times ^c
Filardo (2012)²³ (LR)	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	3	3 wk	Fresh 1/frozen 2	4.7 times (949.0)	1.4 times (8.3)
Filardo (2015)²²	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	3	1 wk	Frozen	4.6 ± 1.4 times	1.1 ± 0.5 times
Gormeli (2017)²⁶ (3 PRP)	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	3	1 wk	Fresh 1/frozen 2	5.2 times	NR
Gormeli (2017)²⁶ (single PRP)	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	1	—	Fresh	5.3 times	NR
Guler (2015)²⁹	Custom	Single	NR	2	3	1 wk	Fresh	4.3 times (987; range, 685-1373)	4.7 times (30.5; range, 22.11-44.4)
Kon (2011)³⁶	Custom	Double	CaCl₂	5	3	2 wk	Fresh 1/frozen 2	6 times	No WBC reduction was performed.
Lana (2016)³⁸	Custom	Double	Autologous thrombin	5	1	—	Fresh	5-8 times	NR
Mangone (2014)⁴⁴	Crossover 2 RegenKit ATHENA	Single	Calcium gluconate	2-2.5	3	3 wk	Fresh	3-5 times ^c	NR
Paterson (2016)⁵⁸	Custom	Double	UV	3	3	1 wk	Fresh	NR	NR
Sit (2019)⁶⁸	SmartPrep system	Double	NR	7	1	—	Fresh	5.4 ± 1.1 times	15.6 ± 5.3 ^c
Spakova (2012)⁷¹	Custom	Triple	None	3	3	1 wk	Fresh	4.5 times	3.6 times (23.2 ± 7.6)

^a Variables are expressed as mean, mean ± SD, and mean (range). Dashes indicate not applicable (no interval needed). ACP, autologous conditioned plasma (Arthrex); CaCl₂, calcium chloride; Crossover 2 Regen Kit ATHENA (Florence); LP-PRP, leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma; LR-PRP, leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma; MTF Cascade system, Musculoskeletal Tissue Foundation Cascade (MTF Sports Medicine); NR, not reported; PRGF-Endoret, Plasma Rich in Grow Factors–Endoret (Biotechnology Institute); PRP, platelet-rich plasma; Regen ACR-C, Regen Autologous Cellular Regeneration-C (Regen Lab); RegenKit-THT (Stryker); Rooyagen kit (Rooyagen Co); SmartPrep system (Harvest Terumo BCT); UV, ultraviolet; WBC, white blood cell, Ycellbio PRP kit (Ycellbio Medical).

^b Mean ± SD represents concentration for platelet (×10⁶/μL) and leukocyte (×10³/μL) or time with respect to baseline blood concentration.

^c According to review of manufacturer details or authors contacted.

References

Asfaha

Cenac

Houle

, et al. Protease-activated receptor-4: a novel mechanism of inflammatory pain modulation. Br J Pharmacol. 2007;150(2):176–185.

Assirelli

Filardo

Mariani

, et al. Effect of two different preparations of platelet-rich plasma on synoviocytes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(9):2690–2703.

Bendinelli

Matteucci

Dogliotti

, et al. Molecular basis of anti-inflammatory action of platelet-rich plasma on human chondrocytes: mechanisms of NF-kappaB inhibition via HGF. J Cell Physiol. 2010;225(3):757–766.

Brandl

Angele

Roll

Prantl

Kujat

Kinner

Influence of the growth factors PDGF-BB, TGF-beta1 and bFGF on the replicative aging of human articular chondrocytes during in vitro expansion. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(3):354–360.

Braun

Kim

Chu

Dragoo

. The effect of platelet-rich plasma formulations and blood products on human synoviocytes: implications for intra-articular injury and therapy. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1204–1210.

Buendia-Lopez

Medina-Quiros

Fernandez-Villacanas Marin

. Clinical and radiographic comparison of a single LP-PRP injection, a single hyaluronic acid injection and daily NSAID administration with a 52-week follow-up: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Traumatol. 2018;19(1):3.

Burchard

Huflage

Soost

Richter

Bouillon

Graw

. Efficiency of platelet-rich plasma therapy in knee osteoarthritis does not depend on level of cartilage damage. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):153.

Campbell

Saltzman

Mascarenhas

, et al. Does intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection provide clinically superior outcomes compared with other therapies in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(11):2213–2221.

Cassano

Kennedy

Ross

Fraser

Goodale

Fortier

. Bone marrow concentrate and platelet-rich plasma differ in cell distribution and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein concentration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(1):333–342.

10.

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.

11.

Chinder

Samorekar

Sridhar

Arao

Uyyalawada

. Platelet rich plasma as a boon for osteoarthritic knees—a prospective observational study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(3):RC06–RC09.

12.

Cole

Karas

Hussey

Pilz

Fortier

. 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.

13.

Collins

Misra

Felson

Crossley

Roos

. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(suppl 11):S208–S228.

14.

Crawford

Briggs

Rodkey

Steadman

. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the IKDC score for meniscus injuries of the knee. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):839–844.

15.

Dai

Zhou

Zhang

. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(3):659–670.e651.

16.

DeLong

Russell

Mazzocca

. Platelet-rich plasma: the PAW classification system. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(7):998–1009.

17.

Dohan Ehrenfest

Rasmusson

Albrektsson

. Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27(3):158–167.

18.

Dragoo

Braun

Durham

, et al. Comparison of the acute inflammatory response of two commercial platelet-rich plasma systems in healthy rabbit tendons. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(6):1274–1281.

19.

Duif

Vogel

Topcuoglu

Spyrou

von Schulze Pellengahr

Lahner

. Does intraoperative application of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma during arthroscopy for knee degeneration affect postoperative pain, function and quality of life? A 12-month randomized controlled double-blind trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(7):971–977.

20.

Durant

Dwyer

McCarthy

Cote

Bradley

Mazzocca

. Protective nature of platelet-rich plasma against chondrocyte death when combined with corticosteroids or local anesthetics. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(1):218–225.

21.

Duymus

Mutlu

Dernek

Komur

Aydogmus

Kesiktas

. 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.

Filardo

Di Matteo

Di Martino

, 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.

23.

Filardo

Kon

Pereira Ruiz

, et al. Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular injections for cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis: single- versus double-spinning approach. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(10):2082–2091.

24.

Gobbi

Karnatzikos

Mahajan

Malchira

. Platelet-rich plasma treatment in symptomatic patients with knee osteoarthritis: preliminary results in a group of active patients. Sports Health. 2012;4(2):162–172.

25.

Gobbi

Lad

Karnatzikos

. The effects of repeated intra-articular PRP injections on clinical outcomes of early osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(8):2170–2177.

26.

Gormeli

Ataoglu

Colak

Aslanturk

Ertem

. 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.

27.

Greco

Anderson

Mann

, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):891–902.

28.

Guillibert

Charpin

Raffray

, et al. Single injection of high volume of autologous pure PRP provides a significant improvement in knee osteoarthritis: a prospective routine care study. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(6):1327.

29.

Guler

Mutlu

Isyar

Seker

Kayaalp

Mahirogullari

. Comparison of short-term results of intraarticular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid treatments in early-stage gonarthrosis patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(3):509–513.

30.

Halpern

Chaudhury

Rodeo

, et al. Clinical and MRI outcomes after platelet-rich plasma treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Clin J Sport Med. 2013;23(3):238–239.

31.

Hart

Safi

Komzak

Jajtner

Puskeiler

Hartova

. Platelet-rich plasma in patients with tibiofemoral cartilage degeneration. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(9):1295–1301.

32.

Higgins

Altman

Gotzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:D5928.

33.

Irrgang

Anderson

Boland

, et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(5):600–613.

34.

Kim

Yoon

Shin

. Platelet-rich plasma stimulates cell proliferation and enhances matrix gene expression and synthesis in tenocytes from human rotator cuff tendons with degenerative tears. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1035–1045.

35.

Joshi Jubert

Rodriguez

Reverte-Vinaixa

Navarro

. Platelet-rich plasma injections for advanced knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(2):2325967116689386.

36.

Kon

Mandelbaum

Buda

, et al. Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular injection versus hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation as treatments for cartilage pathology: from early degeneration to osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(11):1490–1501.

37.

Lana

Macedo

Ingrao

ILG

Huber

Santos

Santana

MHA

. Leukocyte-rich PRP for knee osteoarthritis: current concepts. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(suppl 1):S179–S182.

38.

Lana

Weglein

Sampson

, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma and the combination of both in the treatment of mild and moderate osteoarthritis of the knee. J Stem Cells Regen Med. 2016;12(2):69–78.

39.

Laver

Marom

Dnyanesh

Mei-Dan

Espregueira-Mendes

Gobbi

. PRP for degenerative cartilage disease: a systematic review of clinical studies. Cartilage. 2017;8(4):341–364.

40.

Lee

Cook

Mendelson

Moioli

Yao

Mao

. Regeneration of the articular surface of the rabbit synovial joint by cell homing: a proof of concept study. Lancet. 2010;376(9739):440–448.

41.

Lin

Yang

Hsu

Yeh

Renn

. Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma is superior to hyaluronic acid or saline solution in the treatment of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, triple-parallel, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(1):106–117.

42.

Luo

Jiang

, et al. Mechano growth factor (MGF) and transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta3 functionalized silk scaffolds enhance articular hyaline cartilage regeneration in rabbit model. Biomaterials. 2015;52:463–475.

43.

Macaulay

Carr

Gusnanto

Ouwehand

Fitzgerald

Watkins

. Platelet genomics and proteomics in human health and disease. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(12):3370–3377.

44.

Mangone

Orioli

Pinna

Pasquetti

. Infiltrative treatment with platelet rich plasma (PRP) in gonarthrosis. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2014;11(1):67–72.

45.

Martin

Leibovich

. Inflammatory cells during wound repair: the good, the bad and the ugly. Trends Cell Biol. 2005;15(11):599–607.

46.

Mazzocca

McCarthy

Chowaniec

, et al. The positive effects of different platelet-rich plasma methods on human muscle, bone, and tendon cells. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(8):1742–1749.

47.

McCarrel

Fortier

. Temporal growth factor release from platelet-rich plasma, trehalose lyophilized platelets, and bone marrow aspirate and their effect on tendon and ligament gene expression. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(8):1033–1042.

48.

McCarrel

Minas

Fortier

. Optimization of leukocyte concentration in platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of tendinopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(19):e143.

49.

Mifune

Matsumoto

Takayama

, et al. The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the regenerative therapy of muscle derived stem cells for articular cartilage repair. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(1):175–185.

50.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

51.

Muir

Reisbig

Baria

Kaeding

Bertone

. The concentration of plasma provides additional bioactive proteins in platelet and autologous protein solutions. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(8):1955–1963.

52.

Noh

Liu

Zhuan

, et al. Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma-derived growth factors enhance human fibroblast proliferation in vitro. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018;10(2):240–247.

53.

Padua

Bondi

Ceccarelli

, et al. Italian version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(8):819–823.

54.

Page

Pitchford

. Neutrophil and platelet complexes and their relevance to neutrophil recruitment and activation. Int Immunopharmacol. 2013;17(4):1176–1184.

55.

Park

Han

Song

Kim

. Platelet-rich plasma therapy for knee joint problems: review of the literature, current practice and legal perspectives in Korea. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2012;24(2):70–78.

56.

Parrish

Roides

. Physiology of blood components in wound healing: an appreciation of cellular co-operativity in platelet rich plasma action. J Exerc Sports Orthop. 2017;4(2):1–14.

57.

Patel

Dhillon

Aggarwal

Marwaha

Jain

. 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.

58.

Paterson

Nicholls

Bennell

Bates

. Intra-articular injection of photo-activated platelet-rich plasma in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:67.

59.

Pesce

Ramalingam

Mentink-Kane

, et al. Arginase-1-expressing macrophages suppress Th2 cytokine-driven inflammation and fibrosis. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(4):e1000371.

60.

Pifer

Maerz

Baker

Anderson

. Matrix metalloproteinase content and activity in low-platelet, low-leukocyte and high-platelet, high-leukocyte platelet rich plasma (PRP) and the biologic response to PRP by human ligament fibroblasts. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1211–1218.

61.

Raeissadat

Rayegani

Babaee

Ghorbani

. The effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain, function, and quality of life of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Pain Res Treat. 2013;2013:165967.

62.

Raeissadat

Rayegani

Hassanabadi

, et al. Knee osteoarthritis injection choices: platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus hyaluronic acid (a one-year randomized clinical trial). Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;8:1–8.

63.

Rayegani

Raeissadat

Taheri

, et al. Does intra articular platelet rich plasma injection improve function, pain and quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee? A randomized clinical trial. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2014;6(3):5405.

64.

Riboh

Saltzman

Yanke

Fortier

Cole

. Effect of leukocyte concentration on the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(3):792–800.

65.

Sanchez

Fiz

Azofra

, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF-Endoret) versus hyaluronic acid in the short-term treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(8):1070–1078.

66.

Shen

Yuan

Chen

Xie

Zhang

. 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.

67.

Simental-Mendia

Vilchez-Cavazos

Pena-Martinez

Said-Fernandez

Lara-Arias

Martinez-Rodriguez

. Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma is more effective than the conventional therapy with acetaminophen for the treatment of early knee osteoarthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(12):1723–1732.

68.

Sit

RWS

RWK

Law

, et al. Intra-articular and extra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections for knee osteoarthritis: a 26-week, single-arm, pilot feasibility study. Knee. 2019;26(5):1032–1040.

69.

Slim

Nini

Forestier

Kwiatkowski

Panis

Chipponi

. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–716.

70.

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.

71.

Spakova

Rosocha

Lacko

Harvanova

Gharaibeh

. 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.

72.

Tubach

Ravaud

Baron

, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):29–33.

73.

van Buul

Koevoet

Kops

, et al. Platelet-rich plasma releasate inhibits inflammatory processes in osteoarthritic chondrocytes. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(11):2362–2370.

74.

Vaquerizo

Plasencia

Arribas

, et al. Comparison of intra-articular injections of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF-Endoret) versus Durolane hyaluronic acid in the treatment of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(10):1635–1643.

75.

Viechtbauer

. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.

76.

Wallace

Dahabreh

Trikalinos

Lau

Trow

Schmid

. Closing the gap between methodologists and end-users: R as a computational back-end. J Stat Softw. 2012;49(5):1–15.

77.

Zhang

Wang

Huang

. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:445–453.

Adverse Reactions and Clinical Outcomes for Leukocyte-Poor Versus Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Literature Search

Study Selection

Definitions of LP-PRP and LR-PRP

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Assessment of Methodologic Quality

Statistical Analysis

Results

Identification of Studies

Study Characteristics and Methodologic Quality Assessment

VAS Score

Total WOMAC Score

IKDC Subjective Score

Adverse Reaction

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Notes

Appendix

References