Comparing leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma injection with surgical intervention for the management of refractory tennis elbow. A prospective randomised trial

Comparison of Interventions for Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Pain Outcome

PURPOSE

There is controversy regarding the optimal treatment for lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), and not all available treatment options have been compared directly with placebo/control. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of different LET treatments directly and indirectly against control/placebo based on a validated outcome, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) pain score.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials comparing different treatment methods for LET were included, provided they reported outcome data using the PRTEE pain score. A network meta-analysis with random effect was used to combine direct and indirect evidence between treatments compared with placebo in the short term (up to six weeks) and midterm (more than six weeks and up to six months) after intervention.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 12 comparators including control/placebo were eligible. The results indicated no significant improvement in PRTEE pain score in the short term across all treatments compared with control/placebo. In the midterm, physiotherapy/exercise showed benefit against placebo (mean difference: -4.32, 95% confidence interval: -7.58 and -1.07). Although steroid injections, dry needling, and autologous blood also exhibited potential treatment effects, it is crucial for the clinician to consider certain pitfalls when considering these treatments. The limited number of small studies and paucity of data call for caution in interpreting the results and need for further evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be informed that there is currently no strong evidence that any treatment produces more rapid improvement in pain symptoms when compared with control/placebo in the short and medium terms.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic I.

Treatment of Tendon Injuries in the Servicemember Population across the Spectrum of Pathology: From Exosomes to Bioinductive Scaffolds

Tendon injuries in military servicemembers are one of the most commonly treated nonbattle musculoskeletal injuries (NBMSKIs). Commonly the result of demanding physical training, repetitive loading, and frequent exposures to austere conditions, tendon injuries represent a conspicuous threat to operational readiness. Tendon healing involves a complex sequence between stages of inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling cycles, but the regenerated tissue can be biomechanically inferior to the native tendon. Chemical and mechanical signaling pathways aid tendon healing by employing growth factors, cytokines, and inflammatory responses. Exosome-based therapy, particularly using adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), offers a prominent cell-free treatment, promoting tendon repair and altering mRNA expression. However, each of these approaches is not without limitations. Future advances in tendon tissue engineering involving magnetic stimulation and gene therapy offer non-invasive, targeted approaches for improved tissue engineering. Ongoing research aims to translate these therapies into effective clinical solutions capable of maximizing operational readiness and warfighter lethality.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections Decrease the Need for Any Surgical Procedure for Chronic Epicondylitis versus Conservative Treatment-A Comparative Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections may alleviate symptoms of chronic medial or lateral epicondylitis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 55 patients with chronic ME or LE who had undergone at least 6 months of any conservative treatment before intervention. The patients were divided into two groups: the PRP group (n = 25), who received a single injection of autologous PRP to the medial or lateral epicondyle, and the PT group (n = 30), who continued with PT and pain medication. The primary outcome measures were pain and functional outcomes measured in terms of the following: Patient Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), which were detected at preintervention, 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included complications and the need for any surgery at follow-up. Results: Primary outcome measurements showed significantly better results favoring the PRP group (6-month PRTEE total 43.2 ± 19.2 vs. 62.8 ± 24.0, p < 0.001; 12-month PRTEE total 6.9 ± 15.0 vs. 28.1 ± 24.4, p < 0.001; 24-month PRTEE total 4.8 ± 9.8 vs. 12.7 ± 14.5, p = 0.029), and significantly better results in VAS and DASH sub-scores. The PRP group required significantly fewer surgical procedures (n = 0/0% vs. n = 6/20%, p = 0.027) at follow-up (mean 38.3 ± 12.3 months), and one case of prolonged pain after injection was detected. Conclusions: Patients who underwent PRP injections for epicondylitis resulted in better pain and functional outcomes compared to physiotherapy, and this improvement lasted at least 24 months. They required fewer surgical procedures and achieved faster recovery than the PT group. We recommend PRP for chronic epicondylitis of the elbow before considering surgery when other treatments have failed.

The use of platelet-rich plasma therapy in treating tennis elbow: A critical review of randomised control trials

Tennis elbow (TE) is a painful and debilitating condition of the elbow. Recently, the use of orthobiologics, such as platelet-rich-plasma (PRP), has been proposed to promote tendon regeneration. Despite their popularity, there is a paucity of updated reviews on the use of PRP compared with other treatment modalities for treating TE. The aim of this review is to summarise high quality studies that compare the use of PRP therapy with other therapies for TE and to identify areas where further research is warranted. This systematic review was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was undertaken in May 2021. Articles were screened for the following criteria: randomised control trials (RCTs) involving PRP in at least one of the treatment arms for tennis elbow. The quality of the RCTs included were analysed for their risk of bias using the modified Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for randomised trials. A total of 20 RCTs of which 1520 TE patients were analysed. The RCTs included in this review compared PRP with various treatment modalities routinely used in clinical practice such as physiotherapy, steroid injections, Autologous Whole Blood (AWB) and surgical interventions. With regards to the quality of RCTs, collectively, selection bias was found to be low risk however, performance bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel performed poorly. Of the 20 RCTs, only 5 studies were classified as low risk of bias. In these 5 studies, 2 RCTs compared PRP with steroids and reported contrasting results, 1 RCT compared PRP with AWB injections which reported both to be similarly efficacious, 3 RCTs included a placebo group and only 1 reported superior effects with PRP. There are 2 main types of PRP classified according to the number of pro-inflammatory leukocyte i.e. leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor PRP. However, only 8 studies documented the formulation of PRP used. While the heterogeneity of PRP formulations could in-part explain the reported differences in outcomes, overall there is limited robust evidence to recommend PRP therapy for TE. Further research is required to establish the optimal formulation and administration of PRP injections. Proper documentation of TE patients need to be standardised before concrete recommendations on the use of PRP therapy may be offered.

A systematic review on the efficacy of different types of platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare pain relief, functional improvement, and the success rate of treatment using 2 different types of PRP by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from database inception to August 2021 using the following terms: lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP, and platelet-rich plasma. The PRP patients included in our study were divided into those receiving leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) and those receiving leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) according to the different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included patient characteristics, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, success rates, and the safety of treatment at short- and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were evaluated in our analysis, including 2420 LE patients. LP-PRP was used in 19 of these studies, LR-PRP was used in 13, and both LP-PRP and LR-PRP were used in 1. Patients in both PRP groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment compared with before treatment. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before treatment, ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term follow-up, and ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 at long-term follow-up in the LR-PRP group. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term follow-up, and 0.7 to 2.7 at long-term follow-up in the LP-PRP group. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7, respectively, before treatment and ranged from 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0, respectively, at long-term follow-up. The success rates in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 70% to 100% and 36% to 100%, respectively. The complication rate was lower in the LP-PRP group (3.9%) than in the LR-PRP group (6.4%, P = .029), with the main complication being temporary pain after PRP treatment.

CONCLUSION

PRP treatment demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in LE patients regardless of the type of PRP. There were no significant differences in pain relief and functional improvement between LR-PRP and LP-PRP. The main complication was temporary pain after PRP injection, and the complication rate in the LP-PRP group was lower than that in the LR-PRP group.

Effectiveness of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy Treatment Depends on the Content of Biologically Active Compounds in Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection is an alternative treatment option for patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. The treatment is supposed to accelerate tissue regeneration by providing high concentrations of growth factors derived from platelets. The aim of the study was to assess the relationship between the content of biologically active compounds in PRP and the clinical effect of the treatment. Thirty patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy treated with a single PRP injection, were evaluated. The pain intensity (measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS)), the pressure pain threshold (PPT), the grip strength and strength of the main arm and forearm muscle groups, and the functional outcome (measured by the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaires), were assessed before PRP injection and at one- and three-months follow-up. Flow cytometry measurements of the growth factors and inflammatory cytokines in PRP were performed, and the results were used to establish the relationship between those molecules and the clinical outcome. After three months from the intervention, the minimal clinically important difference in pain reduction and functional improvement was observed in 67% and 83% of patients, respectively. Positive correlations were found between the extent of pain reduction after three months and concentrations in the PRP of platelets, epidermal growth factor (EGF), vascular endothelial growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factors. The concentration of EGF in the PRP significantly correlated with an improvement in grip strength, strength of wrist extensors, and the size of functional improvement measured by the PRTEE. The local injection of PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral elbow tendinopathy, and the clinical outcome is correlated with concentrations of its biologically active compounds.

Platelet-rich plasma therapy ensures pain reduction in the management of lateral epicondylitis - a PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Analyze the effectiveness of PRP therapy in comparison to other available treatments in the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted electronic database searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until June 2021 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy of PRP in the management of LE. VAS for pain, DASH score, and PRETEE score were the outcomes analyzed. The analysis was performed in R-platform using MetaInsight and interventions were ranked based on p-score approach. Cochrane's CINeMA approach was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs with 2040 patients were included in the network analysis. Compared to saline control, only leukocyte-rich-PRP resulted in significant pain relief (WMD=-14.8,95% CI [-23.18,-6.39];low confidence) compared to steroid, local anesthetic, laser, and surgery. On analyzing DASH scores and PRETEE scores, none of the above-mentioned treatment methods were superior to saline control. In subgroup analysis, leucocyte-rich-PRP resulted in clinically significant improvement. Leucocyte-rich-PRP seems more promising with p-score of 0.415.

CONCLUSION

PRP therapy offers significant pain relief compared to saline control in the management of LE without similar improvement in functional outcome. With available low-quality evidence, PRP was the most promising therapy that needs further exploration to explore its usefulness in lateral epicondylitis.

Functional Outcome of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Intra-lesional Injection for Tennis Elbow – A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is an autologous human plasma preparation with a higher platelet concentration. Injection of PRP were, found to be effective in treating tendinopathy and arthritis. A few studies only focused in using PRP injection in patients with tennis elbow. This study was conducted to access the functional outcome of PRP injection in tennis elbow patients.

Methodology

A prospective study was done from June 2020 to June 2021, at R. L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, India among 80 individuals diagnosed with tennis elbow. All individuals aged between 18 to 65 years of either gender and the pain symptoms not subsided with oral analgesics or physiotherapy were included in this study. We analysed all the patients with a MAYO elbow performance score and Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS) during the follow-up period.

Results

In total, 80 individuals participated in our study, of which the mean age of the participants was 45.54. There is statistical significance in the difference of means of pain score obtained using both VAS and MAYO score at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. There is high significant positive correlation of age with the pain scores at 12th week and 24th week after the procedure.

Conclusion

In tennis elbow patients, PRP injection shows an effective reduction in pain according to VAS and MAYO score and especially, younger age patients have shown more benefit in terms of pain reduction with PRP treatment.

The effect of leucocyte concentration of platelet-rich plasma on outcomes in patients with lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

HYPOTHESIS

The concentration of leukocytes influences the quality of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is no consensus on which type of PRP based on the concentration of leukocytes is the best for lateral epicondylitis (LE).

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until March 1, 2020. Studies involving randomized controlled trials, patients with LE, and treatment with PRP injections were included. PRP was classified into leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP and leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP. LR-PRP was defined as PRP with a white blood cell concentration exceeding that of whole blood (4.0-10.0 per μL³), whereas LP-PRP was defined as PRP with a lower white blood cell concentration than that of whole blood. The efficacy of PRP was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and success rates.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials (six involving LP-PRP and five involving LR-PRP) were eligible for inclusion in this review. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the VAS score. Regarding short-term follow-up, there was no difference in the VAS scores between the LP-PRP and control groups (standard mean difference [SMD], 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.29 to 0.30; P = 0.97), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). There was also no difference in the VAS scores between the LR-PRP and control groups (SMD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.20; P = 0.34), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 56.7%). Regarding long-term follow-up, there was no difference in the VAS scores between the LP-PRP and control groups (SMD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.23; P = 0.134) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 88.4%). The LR-PRP group had lower VAS scores than the control group (SMD, -1.06; 95% CI, -2.02 to -0.09; P = 0.032) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 92%). In the LP-PRP group, there was no significant difference in the success rate (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.07-16.47; P = 0.956) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 87.7%). In the LR-PRP group, however, the patients who received PRP had a higher success rate than those in the control group (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.67-4.85; P < 0.01) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 82.9%).

CONCLUSION

LR-PRP may provide pain relief and successful outcomes for patients with LE compared with alternative local injections. Better results were observed with the use of LR-PRP than with the use of LP-PRP.

Platelet-rich plasma injection vs. operative treatment for lateral elbow tendinosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although surgical treatment is considered reliable for lateral elbow tendinosis, local injection therapy may be preferable, as it avoids surgery. Among a number of local injections, platelet-rich plasma has been used successfully to treat lateral elbow tendinosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes in patients treated with either platelet-rich plasma injections or surgery for lateral elbow tendinosis using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies published before March 1, 2021, that compared platelet-rich plasma with operative treatment for lateral elbow tendinosis. The pooled analysis was designed to compare the visual analog scale scores and the Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores between the platelet-rich plasma and surgical treatment groups at serial time points.

RESULTS

We included 5 studies involving 340 patients with lateral elbow tendinosis, comprising of 154 patients treated with platelet-rich plasma and 186 patients who underwent surgical treatment. The pooled analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the visual analog scale scores at any of the follow-up time points, namely, 2 months (mean difference [MD] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.51 to 4.74, P = .55, I² = 94%), 6 months (MD 0.80, 95% CI -2.83 to 4.42, P = .67, I² = 92%), and 12 months (MD -0.92, 95% CI -4.63 to 2.80, P = .63, I² = 93%) postintervention and in the Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores at 12 weeks (MD -1.86, 95% CI -22.30 to 18.58, P = .86, I² = 81%), 24 weeks (MD -3.33, 95% CI -21.82 to 15.17, P = .72, I² = 74%), and 52 weeks (MD -3.64, 95% CI -19.65 to 12.37, P = .66, I² = 69%) postintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Local platelet-rich plasma injections and surgical treatment produced equivalent pain scores and functional outcomes in patients with lateral elbow tendinosis. Thus, platelet-rich plasma injections may represent a reasonable alternative treatment for patients who are apprehensive to proceed with surgery or for poor surgical candidates.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Comparative analysis of leucocyte poor vs leucocyte rich platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review & meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review & Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

RESULTS

We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.