Background: Chronic lateral elbow epicondylitis is a tendinosis with angiofibrolastic degeneration of the wrist extensors’ origin. Healing of this lesion is reported with the use of autologous blood as well as with platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
Purpose: A comparative study of these 2 treatments was conducted in an effort to investigate the possible advantages of PRP.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: Twenty-eight patients were divided equally into 2 groups, after blocked randomization. Group A was treated with a single injection of 3 mL of autologous blood and group B with 3 mL of PRP under ultrasound guidance. A standardized program of eccentric muscle strengthening was followed by all patients in both groups. Evaluation using a pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Liverpool elbow score was performed at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
Results: The VAS score improvement was larger in group B at every follow-up interval but the difference was statistically significant only at 6 weeks, when mean improvement was 3.8 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-4.5) in group B (61.47% improvement) and 2.5 points (95% CI, 1.9-3.1) in group A (41.6% improvement) (P < .05). No statistically significant difference was noted between groups regarding Liverpool elbow score.
Conclusion: Regarding pain reduction, PRP treatment seems to be an effective treatment for chronic lateral elbow epicondylitis and superior to autologous blood in the short term. Defining details of indications, best PRP concentration, number and time of injections, as well as rehabilitation protocol might increase the method’s effectiveness. Additionally, the possibility of cost reduction of the method might justify the use of PRP over autologous whole blood for chronic or refractory tennis elbow.
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be a general stimulation for repair and 1-year results showed promising success percentages.
Purpose: This trial was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of PRP compared with corticosteroid injections in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis with a 2-year follow-up.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: The trial was conducted in 2 Dutch teaching hospitals. One hundred patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned to a leukocyte-enriched PRP group (n = 51) or the corticosteroid group (n = 49). Randomization and allocation to the trial group were carried out by a central computer system. Patients received either a corticosteroid injection or an autologous platelet concentrate injection through a peppering needling technique. The primary analysis included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome scores.
Results: The PRP group was more often successfully treated than the corticosteroid group (P < .0001). Success was defined as a reduction of 25% on VAS or DASH scores without a reintervention after 2 years. When baseline VAS and DASH scores were compared with the scores at 2-year follow-up, both groups significantly improved across time (intention-to-treat principle). However, the DASH scores of the corticosteroid group returned to baseline levels, while those of the PRP group significantly improved (as-treated principle). There were no complications related to the use of PRP.
Conclusion: Treatment of patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis with PRP reduces pain and increases function significantly, exceeding the effect of corticosteroid injection even after a follow-up of 2 years. Future decisions for application of PRP for lateral epicondylitis should be confirmed by further follow-up from this trial and should take into account possible costs and harms as well as benefits.
