Preparation Methods and Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-articular Hip Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Despite its increasing use in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, questions remain regarding the preparation methods of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its clinical applications for intra-articular hip disorders, including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral pathology, and osteoarthritis (OA). To systematically review and assess the preparation methods and clinical outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. A systematic review in accordance with the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in September 2019. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Embase were queried for studies regarding the use of PRP to treat intra-articular hip disorders. Qualifying articles were English-language RCTs describing the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders, either as standalone treatment or surgical augmentation. Two authors independently assessed article eligibility. Data pertaining to patient characteristics, indication for treatment, PRP preparation method, follow-up period, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Study results were qualitatively reported and quantitatively compared using meta-analysis when appropriate. Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Four studies described the use of PRP for hip OA and 3 utilized PRP at arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears. Outcomes after PRP for OA demonstrated improvement in validated patient-reported outcome measures for up to 1 year; however, pooled effect sizes found no statistically significant difference between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) regarding pain visual analog scale scores at short-term (≤2 months; P = .27), midterm (4-6 months; P = .85), or long-term (1 year; P = .42) follow-up. When injected at arthroscopy, 1 study reported improved outcomes, 1 reported no difference in outcomes, and 1 reported worse outcomes compared with controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between PRP and control cohorts at a minimum 1-year follow-up. There were considerable deficiencies and heterogeneity in the reporting of PRP preparation methods for both indications. Treatment of OA with PRP demonstrated reductions in pain and improved patient-reported outcomes for up to 1 year. However, there was no statistically significant difference between PRP and HA in pain reduction. Likewise, for FAIS and labral surgery there was no statistically significant difference in mHHS outcomes between patients treated with PRP and controls. Given the limited number of studies and variability in PRP preparations, additional high-quality randomized trials are warranted.

This publication has 48 references indexed in Scilit: