Abstract
There are a number of patients in whom hip preservation surgery is not indicated as they have developed signs of early osteoarthritis, and nor can they have a hip replacement as they are too early in the disease process. The use of PRP in OA of the hip has not been studied systematically and this study concisely collates all the available data in the use of PRP in Hip OA. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess intra-articular platelet-rich plasma as a therapeutic intervention for hip osteoarthritis, including the duration of efficacy, influence of dose and composition of PRP, and the incidence of adverse effects.
We performed literature searches on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, WEB OF SCIENCE, COCHRANE and SCOPUS databases, and PRSIMA guidelines were followed. Data was pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed quality of the included studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) instrument, with an additional assessment for Randomised Controlled Trials with the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).
Eight studies were included in the analysis, with data from a total of 331 patients. PRP significantly reduced pain compared to baseline at multiple timepoints, with the greatest effect at 1–2mo follow-up. PRP only significantly improved function at the 1–2mo follow-up. A significantly larger reduction in pain was achieved with a single injection or PRP compared to multiple injections, a total injected dose of PRP <15mL compared to ≥15mL or using a leukocyte-poor PRP preparation compared to leukocyte-rich PRP. There were no lasting adverse effects.
Low and moderate quality evidence suggests that PRP reduces pain and improves function at endpoint compared to baseline. Moderate quality evidence suggests a larger reduction in pain is achieved with a single injection of PRP compared to multiple injections, and low quality evidence attributes a larger reduction of pain with a total injected dose of PRP <15mL compared to ≥15mL or using leukocyte-poor PRP compared to leukocyte-rich PRP.
