View clinical trials related to Platelet-rich Plasma (PRP).
Filter by:Knee osteoarthritis is an extremely common and debilitating condition, more common in women, with an estimated global prevalence of 16%, and as high as 50% by the age of 80. Current management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) revolves around conservative treatments- biomechanical interventions, intra-articular injections, exercise, self-management and education, oral or topical medications, strength training, and weight management - or surgical management. For injection therapies, corticosteroids remain the standard of care; approximately 84% of sports medicine physicians perform these knee injections at least monthly, reporting a median range of 11-20 injections per month. Multiple detrimental effects of corticosteroid injections are well-known, including alterations of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, blood glucose levels, bone turnover, inflammatory response, blood pressure, and psychologic well-being. Thus, alternative therapies are of the utmost importance. Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is an injectable preparation of a patient's blood that can be used for numerous conditions and has received significant attention over the past several years for its potential application for the treatment of pain and functional impairment due to knee OA. Systematic reviews of randomized-controlled trials have demonstrated equivalent-to-superior treatment outcomes associated with the use of intra-articular PRP compared to placebo, hyaluronic acid, and corticosteroid. Furthermore, use of intra-articular PRP is associated with a very low rate of adverse events and is likely safer than injectable corticosteroids. Concerns that have limited a wider use of PRP include two main concerns - an uncertainty regarding the current evidence base due to study-related bias, heterogeneity, and lack of reporting standards; and second, more importantly, the main issue remains high cost.
The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adding PRP or Sham PRP injection to ESWT treatment in patients with lateral epicondylitis on pain, muscle strength, functional activities, quality of life and work activities, and to determine the superiority of the treatments over each other.
Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the one of the most common orthopaedic problem resulting in heel pain. Previous evidence suggests that Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) injection has better outcome in the long run as compared to the local steroid injection (SI). Although over the past many years, steroid injection was considered as the choice of treatment after the failure of conservative treatment methods, PRP therapy has shown promising results in the treatment of plantar fasciitis now-a-days. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of PRP injection compared with Steroid injection in the treatment of Plantar Fasciitis. A hospital-based randomized clinical trial study will be carried out to compare the efficacy of the therapeutic effect between steroid injection and Platelet Rich Plasma injection in plantar fasciitis. A representative sample size of 78 patients aged 18 years to 60 years suffering from plantar fasciitis with failed conservative treatment will be intervened. The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and the visual analog scale (VAS) scoring system will be recorded pre- and post-injection phases at 3 months and 6 months period. Statistical analyses will be performed using independent t-test and Mann Whitney U test to compare between the two means. The outcome of this study will help to guide the physicians to choose the better therapeutic approach among the patients suffering from plantar fasciitis.
Objective Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely utilized in the treatment of sports injuries with favorable outcomes. However, potential systemic effects after localized PRP injection are unclear at present. Design: prospective randomized study Methods Twenty-four Taiwanese male athletes with tendinopathy were randomized into a PRP group (n = 13) or a saline group (n = 11).
Background and Rationale: Tedious PRP infiltrations are emerging treatments for tendinopathies and tendon tears. It has been showed effective in different parts of the body, but current evidences for rotator cuff PRP infiltration remains poor. Some studies that tested infiltrations on transfixing lesions showed no statistically significant effect of PRP on tendon healing. The investigators believe that this might be explained by a "flushing effect" of PRP into subacromial space or glenohumeral joint. Therefore, it was decided to focus this study on interstitial lesions, in which PRP is entrapped into the lesion for a long time. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether intra-tear PRP infiltrations promotes tear repair better than needling procedures of torn tendon in participants with supraspinatus interstitial tears. As secondary objective, we will study symptoms alleviation in same way. Primary outcome: Primary outcome: Supraspinatus tear size change from baseline will be compared between cases receiving two PRP injections and controls receiving torn tendon needling, 6 months after second injection. Secondary outcomes: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant score, ASES score, Shoulder pain disability index, and Visual analogue scale changes from baseline will be compared between cases receiving two PRP injections and controls receiving torn tendon needling, 0,1,3, and 6 months after second injection. Study design: This case-control study is randomized 1:1 between PRP (intervention group) and needling (Control group). It is a superiority trial that will include 84 patients suffering from interstitial supraspinatus tears. As adjuvant therapy, patients from each arm will beneficiate from standard physical therapy program. PRP and needling will be repeated 2 times, at one month interval. First injection will occur up to two months after recruitment. Clinical follow-up will occur from second injection to one year after second injection, with clinical parameters evaluation at 0,1,3, and 6 months after second injection, and control MRI 6 months after second injection. Study Product / Intervention: Supraspinatus tendon needling with intralesional PRP injection. PRP will be extracted with Regenlab® extraction kit. No other medications used. Control Intervention (if applicable): Supraspinatus tendon needling with intralesional saline water injection. Number of Participants with Rationale: 84 patients will be needed (37 in each group). A 10% of dropout has been taken in consideration. Study Duration: 24 months from recruitment of the first patient to the last follow-up visit. Scientific report will be written within the two months following recruitment of the last patient. Study Schedule: First-Participant-In: 01.6.2015 Last-Participant-Out: 30.6.2017