ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of genicular artery embolization (GAE), radiofrequency (RF) ablation, and intra-articular (IA) injection for the treatment of knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement in June 2020. The visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded at baseline and at all available time points for each therapy. Standard mean differences were calculated at each time point and compared between treatments to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. RESULTS: All 3 treatments demonstrated significant differences in VAS scores after therapy. RF ablation produced the greatest significant mean reduction in relative VAS score from baseline at 1 year of follow-up (mean, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.59; P = .03). GAE reported the most significant reductions in VAS scores across all measured time points. Overall, the comparison did not demonstrate a significant difference in VAS scores among patients receiving IA injections, RF ablation, and GAE. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not suggest a significant difference in outcomes among IA injection, RF ablation, and GAE for knee pain secondary to OA.
Journal»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of the clinical literature reporting the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in terms of clinical outcomes including pain and function and cartilage repair in patients with osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed any studies investigating clinical outcomes and cartilage repair after the clinical application of cell populations containing MSCs in human subjects with knee osteoarthritis through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Studies with a level of evidence of IV or V were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Clinical outcomes were assessed using clinical scores, and cartilage repair was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging and second-look arthroscopy findings.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies that met the criteria of 50 full-text studies were included in this review, with 6 randomized controlled trials, 8 prospective observational studies, and 3 retrospective case-control studies. Among 17 studies, 8 studies used bone marrow-derived MSCs, 6 used adipose tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction, 2 used adipose tissue-derived MSCs, and 1 used umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs. All studies except 2 reported significantly better clinical outcomes in the MSC group or improved clinical outcomes at final follow-up. In terms of cartilage repair, 9 of 11 studies reported improvement of the cartilage state on magnetic resonance imaging, and 6 of 7 studies reported repaired tissue on second-look arthroscopy. The mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score was 55.5 ± 15.5 (range, 28-74).
CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular MSCs provide improvements in pain and function in knee osteoarthritis at short-term follow-up (<28 months) in many cases. Some efficacy has been shown of MSCs for cartilage repair in osteoarthritis; however, the evidence of efficacy of intra-articular MSCs on both clinical outcomes and cartilage repair remains limited.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; systematic review of level I, II, and III studies.
CONTEXT: Amid extensive debate, evidence surrounding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for musculoskeletal injuries has rapidly proliferated, and an overall assessment of efficacy of PRP across orthopaedic indications is required.
OBJECTIVES: (1) Does PRP improve patient-reported pain in musculoskeletal conditions? and (2) Do PRP characteristics influence its treatment effect?
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science libraries were searched through February 8, 2017. Additional studies were identified from reviews, trial registries, and recent conferences.
STUDY SELECTION: All English-language randomized trials comparing platelet-rich therapy with a control in patients 18 years or older with musculoskeletal bone, cartilage, or soft tissue injuries treated either conservatively or surgically were included. Substudies of previously reported trials or abstracts and conference proceedings that lacked sufficient information to generate estimates of effect for the primary outcome were excluded.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.
DATA EXTRACTION: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Agreement was high between reviewers with regard to included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 78 randomized controlled trials (5308 patients) were included. A standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.5 was established as the minimum for a clinically significant reduction in pain. A reduction in pain was associated with PRP at 3 months (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.20) and sustained until 1 year (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.39). Low- to moderate-quality evidence supports a reduction in pain for lateral epicondylitis (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.23) and knee osteoarthritis (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.41) at 1 year. PRP characteristics did not influence results.
CONCLUSION: PRP leads to a reduction in pain; however, evidence for clinically significant efficacy is limited. Available evidence supports the use of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis as well as knee osteoarthritis.
INTRODUCTION: The Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade is the most commonly used measure of radiographic disease severity in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Studies suggest that intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) should only be considered in cases of early stage knee OA. The purpose of this review was to determine if trials administering IA-HA in early-moderate knee OA patients demonstrated greater pain relief than studies that also included patients with end-stage disease.METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing IA-HA with saline injections and that diagnosed disease severity using the K-L grade criteria. The primary outcome was mean change in pain from baseline at 4-13 weeks and 22-27 weeks. Safety was evaluated on the total number of participants experiencing a treatment-related adverse event (AE).RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included. In the early-moderate OA subgroup, the mean change in pain scores was statistically significant favoring IA-HA from baseline to 4-13 weeks [SMD = - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.15, p < 0.0001] and within 22-27 weeks [SMD = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.16, p < 0.00001]. No significant differences were observed in the late OA subgroup. IA-HA was associated with a significantly greater risk of treatment-related AEs relative to saline in the late OA subgroup [RR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16-2.67, p = 0.008].CONCLUSION: IA-HA provides significant pain relief compared to saline for patients with early-moderate knee OA, compared to cohorts including patients with end-stage OA (KL grade 4), with no increase in the risk of treatment-related AEs, up to 6 months. Patients with end-stage disease had lower levels of pain relief and may be diluting study results if included in the treatment cohort.Funding: Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular methylprednisolone and hyaluronic acid (HA) in term of pain reduction and improvements of knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for literature up to January 2018. RCTs involving HA and methylprednisolone in knee OA were included. Two independent reviewers performed independent data abstraction. The I
RESULTS: Five RCTs with 1004 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicated that there were no significant differences in terms of WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness at 4 week, 12 weeks and 26 weeks between HA and methylprednisolone groups. No increased risk of adverse events were identified in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Both HA and methylprednisolone injections were effective therapies for patients with knee OA. Methylprednisolone showed comparable efficacy in reducing pain and improving functional recovery to HA. And no significant difference was found in long-term of follow-up in terms of adverse effects.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested to be effective in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Review of current literature reveals conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of PRP in treating knee OA. Preclinical evidence supports the use of PRP injections to promote a favorable environment for joint tissue healing, targeting not only cartilage but also synovial and meniscal tissues which has a positive effect on delaying the progression of OA. Growth factors found in platelet granules are postulated to influence outcomes in knee OA and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODOLOGY: A systematic review of studies investigating the use of PRP in knee osteoarthritis and following TKA, was performed by searching the following databases for randomised clinical trials and pseudo-randomised clinical and comparative trials comparing the use of PRP to treat knee osteoarthritis and following TKA; MedLine, EMBASE, Science Direct, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were patient reported measures including pain (visual analog scale (VAS)), quality of life scores, and knee function.
RESULTS: A total of 2328 participants were analyzed across 17 included studies and pooled results showed a statistically significant reduction in pain in favor of PRP following TKA but not in non-surgical management of knee OA (P < 0.0001 and 0.13 respectively). No clinical benefit of PRP was found on quality of life and knee function (P = 0.07 and 0.05) following TKA, although a statistical improvement in knee function was demonstrated in patients with knee OA after PRP injection (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant clinical benefit of PRP on secondary outcomes including wound scores and length of hospital stay (p = 0.33 and 0.31, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in respect to blood loss and overall symptoms in favor of PRP compared to control group following TKA (p = 0.37).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrated no long-term statistically significant improvement in patient validated outcomes and secondary outcomes both in patients with knee OA or following TKA for OA. However PRP has been shown to have short to medium-term benefits in pain control after TKA and activities of daily living in patients with OA.
PURPOSE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) have been increasingly used in recent years to treat knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, whether PRP is superior to HA is controversial.
METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library. The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.1.
RESULTS: Three prospective and ten randomized trials were identified. PRP injections reduced pain more effectively than HA injections in OA of the knee at 6 months (mean difference [MD]=-14.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -26.12 to -2.23; P=0.02; I2=95%) and 12 months (MD=-15.25; 95% CI: -22.17 to -8.32; P<0.01; I2=81%) of follow-up evaluated by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, while the VAS showed no significant difference at 3 months (MD=-0.98; 95% CI: -2.55 to 0.59; P=0.22; I2=90%) and 6 months (MD=-0.82; 95% CI: -1.80 to 0.16; P=0.1; I2=83%). Additionally, similar results were observed for the function recovery according to the WOMAC function score and EuroQol-visual analog scales.
CONCLUSION: The intra-articular injection of PRP was not obviously superior to HA in knee OA. Due to the limited quality and data of the evidence currently available, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are required.
BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is superior to hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for English-language, human in vivo studies on the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular PRP compared with HA. The following keywords were used for the search: "platelet-rich plasma," "PRP," "platelet-rich fibrin," "PRF," "platelet," "plasma," "arthritis," "osteoarthritis," "gonarthrosis," and "degeneration."
RESULTS: Seven articles reporting 908 patients and 908 knees were analyzed, including 44% men and 56% women with a mean age of 59.8 years. All studies met the minimal clinically important difference criteria and showed statistically significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including pain, physical function, and stiffness, with PRP treatment. All except two studies showed significant differences between PRP and HA regarding clinical outcomes of pain and function.
CONCLUSIONS: PRP intra-articular injection of the knee may be an effective alternative treatment for knee OA, especially in patients with mild knee OA. Although some studies suggested that the effect of PRP was no better than HA, we found that it was no worse. A large, multicenter, randomized trial is needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP treatment for patients with knee OA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016048394 . Registered on October 2, 2016).
To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of genicular artery embolization (GAE), radiofrequency (RF) ablation, and intra-articular (IA) injection for the treatment of knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement in June 2020. The visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded at baseline and at all available time points for each therapy. Standard mean differences were calculated at each time point and compared between treatments to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect.
RESULTS:
All 3 treatments demonstrated significant differences in VAS scores after therapy. RF ablation produced the greatest significant mean reduction in relative VAS score from baseline at 1 year of follow-up (mean, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.59; P = .03). GAE reported the most significant reductions in VAS scores across all measured time points. Overall, the comparison did not demonstrate a significant difference in VAS scores among patients receiving IA injections, RF ablation, and GAE.
CONCLUSIONS:
The current evidence does not suggest a significant difference in outcomes among IA injection, RF ablation, and GAE for knee pain secondary to OA.
