Table 3 WOMAC, KOOS, Tegner, Lequesne, IKDC, and SF-36 scores
Study | Pretreatment | Early (0–6 wk) | Middle (6–12 wk) | Late (12–26 wk) | Extended (26–52 wk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cerza et al. [22] | ACP: WOMAC 76.9 ± 9.5 | ACP: WOMAC 49.6 ± 17.7 ES: 2.8 | ACP: WOMAC 39.1 ± 17.8 | ACP: WOMAC 36.5 ± 17.9 | DNC |
HA: WOMAC 55.2 ± 12.3 | ES: 4.0 | ES: 4.3 | |||
HA: WOMAC 75.4 ± 10.7 | ES: 1.9 (P < 0.001) between groups | HA: WOMAC 57 ± 11.7 | HA: WOMAC 65.1 ± 10.6 | ||
ES: 1.7 (P < 0.001) between groups | ES: 1.0 (P < 0.001) between groups | ||||
Filardo et al. [11] | PRP: IKDC score 50.2 ± 15.7 | DNC | PRP: IKDC score 62.8 ± 17.6 ES: 0.8 | PRP: IKDC score 64.3 ± 16.4 ES: 0.9 | PRP: IKDC score 64.9 ± 16.8 ES: 0.9 |
KOOS symptoms 64.0 ± 17.9 | KOOS symptoms 71.9 ± 17.0 ES: 0.4 | KOOS symptoms 73.0 ± 18.3 ES: 0.5 | KOOS symptoms 71.3 ± 17.9 ES: 0.4 | ||
Pain 65.4 ± 17.7 | Pain 71.9 ± 17.0 ES: 0.4 | Pain 74.2 ± 19.6 ES: 0.5 | Pain 74.0 ± 19.4 ES: 0.5 | ||
ADL 69.9 ± 20.0 | ADL 81.2 ± 17.9 ES: 0.6 | ADL 79.1 ± 19.0 ES: 0.5 | ADL 77.9 ± 20.6 ES: 0.4 | ||
Sport 37.6 ± 24.7 | Sport 48.8 ± 25.9 ES: 0.5 | Sport 48.7 ± 29.5 ES: 0.5 | Sport 47.4 ± 28.2 ES: 0.4 | ||
QOL 34.9 ± 18.8 | QOL 48.8 ± 25.9 ES: 0.7 | QOL 48.0 ± 23.1 ES: 0.7 | QOL 50.5 ± 22.6 ES: 0.8 | ||
Tegner score 2.9 ± 1.4 | Tegner score 3.8 ± 1.3 ES: 0.6 | ||||
HA: IKDC score 47.4 ± 15.7 | HA: IKDC score 61.4 ± 16.2 | HA: IKDC score 61.0 ± 18.2 | HA: IKDC score 61.7 ± 19.0 | ||
ES: 0.9 | ES: 0.9 | ES: 0.9 | |||
KOOS | KOOS | KOOS | KOOS | ||
Symptoms 67.8 ± 15.7 | Symptoms 71.6 ± 16.3 ES: 0.2 | Symptoms 74.3 ± 16.0 ES: 0.4 | Symptoms 74.2 ± 17.5 ES: 0.4 | ||
Pain 63.1 ± 17.4 | Pain 71.1 ± 18.6 ES: 0.5 | Pain 73.2 ± 18.1 ES: 0.6 | Pain 74.0 ± 19.4 ES: 0.6 | ||
ADL 67.8 ± 21.0 | ADL 78.2 ± 17.4 ES: 0.5 | ADL 77.3 ± 18.6 ES: 0.5 | ADL 77.3 ± 19.8 ES: 0.5 | ||
Sport 34.2 ± 23.9 | Sport 45.0 ± 24.1 ES: 0.5 | Sport 44.7 ± 27.8 ES: 0.5 | Sport 46.6 + −27.9 ES: 0.5 | ||
QOL 33.6 ± 18.0 | QOL 45.5 ± 23.9 ES: 0.7 | QOL 48.5 ± 24.7 ES: 0.8 | QOL 49.2 ± 26.0 ES: 0.9 | ||
Tegner score 2.6 ± 1.2 | Tegner score 3.4 ± 1.6 ES: 0.7 | ||||
P values not recorded | |||||
Sanchez et al. [24] | PRGF: WOMAC | DNC | DNC | PRGF: WOMAC 74.0 ± 42.7 ES: 1.1 | DNC |
121.8 ± 44.4 | 38.2% of patients had 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score 57.3% of patients had 20% decrease in WOMAC pain score | ||||
Lequesne 9.5 ± 3.0 | Lequesne 5.2 ± 3.4 ES: 1.4 | ||||
HA: WOMAC | HA: WOMAC 78.3 ± 48.1 | ||||
115.6 ± 45.1 | ES: 0.8 | ||||
24.1% of patients had 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score, 52.9% of patients had 20% decrease in WOMAC pain score | DNC | ||||
Lequesne 9.1 ± 3.2 | Lequesne 5.4 ± 3.3 ES: 1.2 | ||||
Differences between PRGF and HA for 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score (P = 0.044), for 20% decrease (P = 0.555), for total WOMAC score (P = 0.561), and for Lequesne score (P = 0.714) | |||||
Vaquerizo et al. [25] | PRGF: WOMAC 45.9 ± 12.7 Lequesne 12.8 ± 3.8 HA: WOMAC 50.8 ± 18.4 Lequesne 13.1 ± 38 | DNC | DNC | For patients with 30% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 66, 43, and 23 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.02, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group is 56 percentage points higher than HA group (P < 0.001) For patients with 50% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 43, 29, and 19 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.035, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group is 25 percentage points higher than HA group (P = 0.002) | For patients with 30% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 46, 37, and 40 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < .001, P < .001, P < 0.001, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group 46 percentage points higher than HA group (P < 0.001) For patients with 50% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 29, 31, and 28 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, respectively). Lequesne score: 19 and 2 percentage points in the PRGF and HA groups, respectively |
Filardo et al. [23] | PRP: IKDC score 52.4 ± 14.1 | DNC | PRP: IKDC score 63.2 ± 16.6 ES: 0.8 | PRP: IKDC score 65.0 ± 16.1 ES: 0.9 | PRP: IKDC score 66.2 ± 16.7 ES: 1.0 |
KOOS Symptoms 65.5 ± 16.6 | KOOS Symptoms 72.9 ± 17.0 ES: 0.4 | KOOS Symptoms 74.7 ± 16.9 ES: 0.6 | KOOS Symptoms 73.9 ± 17.2 ES: 0.5 | ||
Pain 66.1 ± 17.9 | Pain 73.8 ± 19.9 ES: 0.4 | Pain 74.7 ± 19.3 ES: 0.5 | Pain 74.9 ± 19.3 ES: 0.5 | ||
ADL 70.6 ± 19.4 | ADL 79.0 ± 19.8 ES: 0.4 | ADL 79.1 ± 19.6 ES: 0.4 | ADL 78.4 ± 20.7 ES: 0.4 | ||
Sport 37.9 ± 25.0 | Sport 48.0 ± 26.1 ES: 0.4 | Sport 49.6 ± 28.6 ES: 0.5 | Sport 49.3 ± 28.6 ES: 0.5 | ||
QOL 36.0 ± 19.4 | QOL 48.4 ± 23.1 ES: 0.6 | QOL 49.2 ± 23.4 ES: 0.7 | QOL 50.8 ± 24.0 ES: 0.8 | ||
EQ VAS score 73.2 ± 12.0 | EQ VAS score 76.3 ± 12.7 | EQ VAS score 76.2 ± 12.9 | EQ VAS score 77.6 ± 11.1 | ||
ES: 0.3 | ES: 0.3 | ES: 0.4 | |||
Tegner score 2.9 ± 1.3 | Tegner score3.6 ± 1.4 ES: 0.5 | Tegner score 3.7 ± 1.5 ES: 0.6 | Tegner score 3.7 ± 1.3 ES: 0.6 | ||
ROM 129.6 ± 12.2 | ROM 130.6 ± 11.8 | ROM 130.3 ± 10.7 | ROM 130.2 ± 11.1 | ||
TPC 410.0 ± 34.3 | TPC 411.4 ± 35.2 | TPC 407.2 ± 35.6 ES: 0.1 | TPC 402.3 ± 33.4 ES: 0.1 | ||
HA: IKDC score 49.7 ± 13.0 | HA: IKDC score 63.5 ± 15.2 ES: 0 | HA: IKDC score 63.5 ± 17.1 ES: 0 | HA: IKDC score 64.2 ± 18.0 ES: 0 | ||
KOOS Symptoms65.8 ± 16.3 | KOOS Symptoms 70.9 ± 16.6 ES: 0.3 | KOOS Symptoms 72.7 ± 17.4 ES: 0.4 | KOOS Symptoms73.9 ± 18.4 ES: 0.5 | ||
Pain 64.1 ± 16.5 | Pain 72.6 ± 17.9 ES: 0.5 | Pain74.8 ± 17.6 ES: 0.7 | Pain 75.4 ± 19.0 ES: 0.7 | ||
ADL 68.2 ± 20.2 | ADL 78.0 ± 17.9 ES: 0.5 | ADL78.4 ± 18.6 ES: 0.5 | ADL 78.4 ± 19.3 ES: 0.5 | ||
Sport 35.7 ± 24.6 | Sport 44.0 ± 25.5 ES: 0.3 | Sport 45.1 ± 27.0 ES: 0.4 | Sport 46.3 ± 28.1 ES: 0.4 | ||
QOL 35.7 ± 18.2 | QOL 47.7 ± 22.1 ES: 0.7 | QOL 49.9 ± 23.1 ES: 0.8 | QOL 50.9 ± 24.4 ES: 0.8 | ||
EQ VAS score 71.6 ± 13.4 | EQ VAS score 73.9 ± 13.7 ES: 0.2 | EQ VAS score74.1 ± 15.1 ES: 0.2 | EQ VAS score 73.4 ± 15.2 ES: 0.1 | ||
Tegner score 2.8 ± 1.3 | Tegner score3.3 ± 1.5 ES: 0.4 | Tegner score 3.5 ± 1.5 ES: 0.5 | Tegner score 3.4 ± 1.5 ES: 0.5 | ||
ROM 128.2 ± 12.2 | ROM 129.0 ± 10.9 | ROM 128.0 ± 11.4 | ROM 127.4 ± 12.0 | ||
TPC 415.0 ± 34.7 | TPC 413.3 ± 34.1 | TPC 408.7 ± 32.5 | No statistical significance between groups | ||
No statistical significance between groups | No statistical significance between groups | No statistical significance between groups | |||
Raeissadat et al. [13] | PRP: WOMAC 39.5 ± 17.06 | DNC | DNC | DNC | PRP: WOMAC 18.44 ± 14.35 (P < 0.001) ES: 1.2 |
Pain 8.46 ± 4.17 | Pain 4.03 ± 3.36 (P < 0.001) ES: 1.1 | ||||
Physical function 2.2 ± 1.76 | Physical function 1.19 ± 1.4 (P < 0.001) ES: 0.6 | ||||
Stiffness 28.91 ± 12.63 | Stiffness 13.19 ± 10.39 (P < 0.001) ES: 1.2 | ||||
SF-36 (PCS) 178.14 ± 81.0 | SF-36 (PCS) 255.96 ± 77.59 (P < 0.001) ES: 1.0 | ||||
SF-36 (MCS) 229.22 ± 95.62 | SF-36 (MCS) 269.92 ± 91.48 (P < 0.001) ES: 0.4 | ||||
HA: WOMAC 28.69 ± 16.69 pain 6.91 ± 3.82 physical function 1.88 ± 1.72 stiffness 19.88 ± 12.32 SF-36 (PCS) 180.4 ± 68.52 SF-36 (MCS) 226.43 ± 97.39 | HA: WOMAC 27.46 ± 16.36 (P = 0.78) pain 5.08 ± 3.71 (P = 0.029) ES: 0.5 physical function 2.14 ± 1.66 (P = 0.16) stiffness 19.51 ± 11.9 (P = 0.919) SF-36 (PCS) 189.39 ± 103.73 (P = 0.37) SF-36 (MCS) 216.91 ± 100.9 (P = 0.74) ES: 0.1 | ||||
Montañez-Heredia et al. [14] | DNC | PRP: EQ Worsening 7.4% | DNC | PRP: EQ Worsening 3.7% | PRP: EQ Worsening 7.4% |
Similar 74.1% | Similar 48.1% | Similar 48.1% | |||
Improvement 18.5% | Improvement 48.1% | Improvement 44.4% | |||
50% decrease VAS: 55.5% | 50% decrease VAS: 55.5% | 50% decrease VAS: 44.4% | |||
HA: EQ Worsening 0% | HA: EQ Worsening 11.5% | HA: EQ Worsening 15.4% | |||
Similar 65.4% | Similar 53.8% | Similar 50.0% | |||
Improvement 34.6% | Improvement 34.6% | Improvement 34.6% | |||
50% decrease VAS: 57.7% | 50% decrease VAS: 30.7% | 50% decrease VAS: 42.3% | |||
KOOS: For patients with arthritis grade II, ADL at 3-month follow-up improved significantly on the KOOS scale in the PRP group as compared with the HA group (P = 0.040) | KOOS: At 6 months follow-up, pain decreased for arthritis grade II patients injected with PRP (P = 0.012) with improvements in function in daily living (P = 0.013) and function in sport and recreation (P = 0.021) |