Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

The Role of Platelet Rich Plasma in Vertebrogenic and Discogenic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present investigation evaluates clinical uses and roles of platelet rich plasma in the management of vetrebrogenic and discogenic mediated pain states.

RECENT FINDINGS

Back pain is a common and significant condition that affects millions of people around the world. The cause of back pain is often complex and multifactorial, with discogenic and vertebrogenic pain being two subtypes of back pain. Currently, there are numerous methods and modalities in which back pain is managed and treated such as physical therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, pharmacotherapies, and platelet-rich plasma. To conduct this systematic review, the authors used the keywords "platelet-rich plasma", "vertebrogenic pain", and "discogenic pain", on PubMed, EuroPMC, Who ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov to better elucidate the role of this treatment method for combating vertebrogenic and discogenic back pain. In recent decades, there has been a rise in popularity of the use of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of numerous musculoskeletal conditions. Related to high concentration of platelets, growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines, platelet-rich plasma is effective in reducing pain related symptoms and in the treatment of back pain. Platelet-rich plasma use has evolved and gained popularity for pain related conditions, including vertebrogenic and discogenic back pain. Additional well-designed studies are warranted in the future to better determine best practice strategies to provide future clinicians with a solid foundation of evidence to make advancements with regenerative medical therapies such as platelet-rich plasma.

Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroids versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for Prolapse Lumbar Intervertebral Disc with Radiculopathy: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind randomized controlled pilot study.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of steroids with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) administered by lumbar transforaminal injection (LTI) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is one of the most common conditions managed by spine surgeons in routine practice. Once conservative management fails, LTI is diagnostic and often therapeutic. Steroids are the gold standard drug used for LTI but have limitations and side effects.

METHODS

In this single-center double-blind randomized controlled pilot study, 46 patients were recruited and randomized by the lottery method. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI), and Short-Form 12 (SF-12) were assessed at 1 week, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics, preprocedure VAS scores, mODI, and SF-12 scores (p=0.52). At the 1-week follow-up, the steroid group had significantly better improvement than the PRP group (p=0.0001). At the 3-week follow-up, both groups showed comparable outcomes; however, the PRP group had better symptom improvement. At 6 weeks and 6 months, the PRP group had better outcomes (VAS, p<0.0001; ODI, p=0.02; SF-12, p=0.002). Moreover, 17 and 16 patients in the steroid and PRP groups underwent repeat LTI with steroids or surgery because of pain recurrence during follow-up. At 1 year, no difference in outcomes was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP may be a useful alternative to steroids for LTI in lumbar radiculopathy. Although improvement was delayed and 1-year outcomes were comparable, the 6-week and 6-month outcomes were better with PRP than with LTI. Multiple PRP injections may be beneficial because of its autologous nature. However, further studies with a larger number of participants, longer follow-up, and repeat LTIs are warranted to draw definite conclusions.

Current Status and Advancements in Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment modality has been around for the last four decades, but only truly gained popularity over the last 10 to 15 years in medicine, in a variety of fields ranging from regenerative medicine to infertility treatment. It has gained popularity, especially in treating musculoskeletal conditions where the bulk of research has been performed and published. There is level I evidence available supporting its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), epicondylitis, bursitis, compressive neuropathy, plantar fasciitis, muscular injuries and osteochondral lesions. Most published research with regards to PRP has been focused on knee OA (limited research in shoulder, elbow, and foot and ankle OA), lateral epicondylitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, whereas spinal and hand conditions have limited research available. Tendinopathies and partial tendon tears have conflicting evidence available, with level I evidence supporting PRP's use in rotator cuff tendinopathies and tears, with contradictory level I evidence discouraging its use in patella and Achilles tendinopathies and tears. The available evidence regarding the use of PRP continues to produce conflicting results, but despite this, there is an ongoing increase in the popularity and use of PRP in patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) has a high economic burden and is strongly related to the degenerative process of the spine, especially in the intervertebral disc and of the facet joints. Numerous treatment modalities have been proposed for the management of LBP, and the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as an innovative therapeutic option for degenerative disease of the spine. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PRP injections in managing low back pain.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, a registered at PROSPERO Systematic Reviews Platform, under number CRD42021268491. The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant articles, along with hand searching to identify gray literature articles, with no language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized trials (NRTs), and case series (CSs) with more than 10 patients were considered eligible. The quality assessment and the risk of bias of the randomized clinical trials were evaluated using the RoB II tool. An evaluation of the description of the preparation methods was performed using an adapted version of the MIBO checklist.

RESULTS

An electronic database search resulted in 2324 articles, and after the exclusion of noneligible articles, 13 RCTs and 27 NRTs or CSs were analyzed. Of the 13 RCTs, 11 found favorable results in comparison to the control group in pain and disability, one showed no superiority to the control group, and one was discontinued because of the lack of therapeutic effect at eight-week evaluation. Description of the PRP preparation techniques were found in almost all papers. The overall risk of bias was considered high in 2 papers and low in 11. An adapted MIBO checklist showed a 72.7% compliance rate in the selected areas.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we analyzed articles from English, Spanish and Russian language, from large databases and grey literature. PRP was in general an effective and safe treatment for degenerative LPB. Positive results were found in almost studies, a small number of adverse events were related, the risk of bias of the RCTs was low. Based on the evaluation of the included studies, we graded as level II the quality of the evidence supporting the use of PRP in LBP. Large-scale, multicenter RCTs are still needed to confirm these findings.

"Platelet-Rich Plasma" epidural injection an emerging strategy in lumbar disc herniation: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar herniated disc (HNP) is mainly treated by conservative management. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has been an option to treat failed cases prior to surgery. Triamcinolone has been widely used due to its efficacy in bringing about pain reduction for up to three months. However, several reports have shown some severe adverse events. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is made from blood through centrifugation. Several studies supported the potential short to long-term effects, and safety of PRP injection in treating HNP. The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy of PRP in treatment of single-level lumbar HNP in comparison to triamcinolone.

METHODS

Thirty patients were treated by transforaminal epidural injections. PRP was obtained from 24 ml venous blood through standardized double-spin protocol. Participants included fifteen patients each being in triamcinolone and PRP groups. The same postoperative protocols and medications were applied. The visual analogue scale of leg (LegVAS), collected at baseline, 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks, was the primary outcome. The BackVAS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), adverse event, and treatment failure were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Platelet ratio of PRP in fifteen patients was 2.86 ± 0.85. Patients treated by PRP injections showed statistically and clinically significant reduction in LegVAS at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, and in ODI at 24 weeks. It demonstrated comparable results on other aspects. No adverse event occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

Noncommercial epidural double-spin PRP yielded superior results to triamcinolone. Due to its efficacy and safety, the procedure is recommended in treating single level lumbar HNP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT, NCT05234840. Registered 1 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT05234840 .

Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Administration on the Intervertebral Disc in Low Back Pain Patients with Modic Type 1 Change: Report of Two Cases

Background and Objectives: Modic type 1 is known to be associated with lower back pain (LBP), but at present, a treatment has not been fully established. Meanwhile, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used for tissue regeneration and repair in the clinical setting. There is no clinical PRP injection trial for the intervertebral disc of LBP patients with Modic type 1. Thus, this study aimed to verify PRP injection safety and efficacy in LBP patients with Modic type 1. As a preliminary experiment, two LBP cases with Modic type 1 are presented. Materials and Methods: PRP was administered intradiscally to two LBP patients with Modic type 1. PRP was obtained from the patients' anticoagulated blood. Primary endpoints were physical condition, laboratory data, and X-ray for safety evaluation. Secondary endpoints were pain scores using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) to evaluate PRP efficacy. The observation period was 24 weeks after the PRP injection. In addition, changes in Modic type 1 using MRI were evaluated. Results: This study assessed two LBP patients with Modic type 1. There were no adverse events in physical condition, laboratory data, or lumbar X-rays after injection. Follow-up MRI showed a decrease of high signal intensity on T2WI compared to before PRP administration. The pain scores tended to improve after the injection. Conclusions: PRP injection into the intervertebral disc of LBP patients with Modic type 1 might be safe and effective. This analysis will be continued as a prospective study to establish the efficacy.

Transforaminal injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma for lumbar disc herniation: A single-center prospective study in Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy is a major health problem, which often treated by neurosurgery or guided lumbar epidural steroids for pain relief. We used autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) as a novel pharmaceutical agent that has strongly emerged in recent years to treat patients of lumbar disc herniation. From that, we evaluated the efficacy of PRP via transforaminal route in treatment of radicular pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled and injected with 4 ml of autologous platelet rich plasma under fluoroscopic guidance via transforaminal epidural injection into area of affected nerve root. They were followed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) for clinical assessment.

RESULTS

Patients who received transforaminal injections with autologous PRP showed statistically significant improvements on all three evaluation tools (VAS, ODI, SLRT). The improvements were sustained over twelve-month follow-up and there were no associated complications.

CONCLUSION

Transforaminal injection with autologous PRP helps patients relieve chronic pains and be able return to work. Besides, autologous PRP can be considered as a good alternative to epidural steroids in management of lumbar disc herniation.

Application of platelet-rich plasma in spinal surgery

With the aging of the population and changes in lifestyle, the incidence of spine-related diseases is increasing, which has become a major global public health problem; this results in a huge economic burden on the family and society. Spinal diseases and complications can lead to loss of motor, sensory, and autonomic functions. Therefore, it is necessary to identify effective treatment strategies. Currently, the treatment of spine-related diseases includes conservative, surgical, and minimally invasive interventional therapies. However, these treatment methods have several drawbacks such as drug tolerance and dependence, adjacent spondylosis, secondary surgery, infection, nerve injury, dural rupture, nonunion, and pseudoarthrosis. Further, it is more challenging to promote the regeneration of the interstitial disc and restore its biomechanical properties. Therefore, clinicians urgently need to identify methods that can limit disease progression or cure diseases at the etiological level. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a platelet-rich form of plasma extracted from venous blood, is a blood-derived product. Alpha granules contain a large number of cytokines, such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor, platelet factor 4 (PF-4), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). These growth factors allow stem cell proliferation and angiogenesis, promote bone regeneration, improve the local microenvironment, and enhance tissue regeneration capacity and functional recovery. This review describes the application of PRP in the treatment of spine-related diseases and discusses the clinical application of PRP in spinal surgery.

Platelet Rich Plasma and Platelet-Related Products in the Treatment of Radiculopathy-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical, pharmacologic and injection therapy may not provide clinically significant or long-standing relief. Regenerative medicine research including Platelet rich plasma (PRP), Platelet lysate (PL) or Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) continues to develop, however evidence appraisal for treatment of radicular pain remains lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections containing PRP or related products to treat radicular pain. Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were queried. Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis, consisting of three randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included functional improvement, anatomical changes on advanced imaging, and adverse events. All studies identified improved pain intensity and functional outcomes after epidural injection of PRP, PRGF and/or PL. Similar or longer lasting pain relief was noted in the PRP cohort compared to the cohort receiving epidural steroid injections with effects lasting up to 12-24 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis revealed a very-low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.