de Vos et al17 | 54 | PRP vs saline injection for Achilles tendinopathy | Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial | Victorian Institute ofSports AssessmentAchillesquestionnaire | No difference in improvement between PRP and placebo at 24 wk | Lack of quantification of platelets or growth factors in PRP group |
Peerbooms et al,18 Gosens et al19 | 100 | PRP vs steroid for lateral epicondylitis | Double-blind,randomized,controlledtrial | VAS, disability of the arm, DASH score | PRP reduces pain, increases function, exceeding steroid at 1 y | Previous nonsurgical treatment, including steroid injections, had failed in all patients |
Peerboomset al,18 Gosens et al19 | 100 | PRP vs steroid for lateral epicondylitis | Double-blind,randomized,controlledtrial | VAS, disability of the arm, DASH score | PRP reduces pain, increases function, exceeding steroidat 2 y | Placebo group received corticosteroid, owing to Netherlands IRB decision |
Sampson et al20 | 14 | PRP for primary/secondary knee OA | Prospective, uncontrolled, pilot study | Brittberg-Peterson VAS, activities and expectation score, OA score | Notable improvement in VAS and OA score with PRP | Small sample size, lack of control |
Li et al21 | 30 | PRP vs hyaluronate in knee OA | Double-blind,randomized,controlledtrial | IKDC score, WOMAC score, Lequesne index | Notable improvement in PRP group at 6 mo compared with hyaluronate | Small sample size |
Kon et al22 | 150 | PRP vs HA for knee cartilage pathology | Prospective, multicenter, comparative study | IKDC score, EQ VAS score, patient satisfaction | Similar results at 2 mo, PRP better at 6 mo and in younger patients and early OA | Lack of randomization of placebo and control groups other than imaging and biologic results, follow-up at different centers, outcome measure used, small sample size |
Mei-Dan et al23 | 32 | PRP vs hyaluronate in osteochondral lesions of the talus | Prospective, quasirandomized, controlled trial | AOFAS, AHFS VAS for pain, stiffness, function and subjective global function score | PRP significantly better than HA in VAS score and AHFS for 6 mo | Large number of patients who previously underwent surgery, poordocumentation of analgesic use by patients |
Spakova et al28 | 120 | PRP vs HA for knee arthritis | Prospective, cohort, controlled trial | WOMAC OA index and 11-point pain intensity scale, numeric rating scale | Statistically significant better results in WOMAC OA index and 11-point pain intensity scale in PRP at 3 and 6 mo | Lack of placebo control, short follow-up period |
Thanasas et al29 | 28 | PRP vs whole blood for chronic lateral elbow epicondylitis | Prospective, randomized, controlled trial | VAS pain score, Liverpool Elbow score | Improvement in VAS score in PRP group was greater in all follow-ups but only statistically significant at 6 wk | Small number of patients |
de Vos et al30 | 54 | Effect of PRP on US tendon structure and neovascularization in chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy | Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial | Tendon structure evaluation by US tissue characterization and color Doppler US | No statistically significant change in tendon structure or alteration in degree | Neovascularization score used has not been validated, lack of sensitivity of color Doppler US for detecting neovascularization compared with power Doppler US |
Filardo et al31 | 31 | PRP for refractory jumper's knee | Prospective, nonrandomized, controlled trial | Tegner, EQ VAS, pain level | Statistically significant improvement in all scores with PRP | Nonhomogenous control group, simultaneous exposure to PRP and physiotherapy in the study group |