Objective:To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid (HA) versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) injection in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.Design:Double-blind randomized controlled trial.Setting:Academic institution.Patients:Seventy patients with chronic glenohumeral osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of HA (n = 36) or LP-PRP (n = 34).Interventions:Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma was processed using Harvest/TerumoBCT Clear PRP kits. Ultrasound-guided injections of 6 mL HA or 6 mL LP-PRP into the glenohumeral joint were performed. Patients, the injecting physician, and outcomes assessor were blinded to treatment assignments.Main outcome measures:Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, current/average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, satisfaction, and side effects were assessed at the 5 follow-up time points over 12 months.Results:Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant between-group differences regarding SPADI, ASES, and current/average NRS pain scores at any time point up to 12 months postinjection (P > 0.05). However, significant improvements in SPADI, ASES, and current/average NRS pain scores were observed in both groups starting at 1 or 2 months (P < 0.01, P < 0.01, P < 0.001, and P < 0.01, respectively). These improvements were observed regardless of osteoarthritis severity. For patients who received LP-PRP, there was no effect of platelet yield on outcomes. Side effect and satisfaction rates were similar between groups.Conclusions:There were no differences in pain and functional outcomes after a single injection of LP-PRP versus HA. However, significant improvements in pain and function were observed after both treatments in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
Background: Tendinosis is a chronic degenerative condition. Current research suggests both percutaneous needle tenotomy (PNT) and leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) may be effective treatments for chronic tendinosis, but no studies have assessed the effectiveness of PNT alone versus PNT with intratendinous LR-PRP for multiple tendon types in a single study. Objective: To assess the efficacy of PNT versus PNT + LR-PRP to treat chronic tendinosis. Study Design: Double-blind, randomized, controlled comparative treatment study. Setting: Primary academic institution. Participants: A convenience sample of 40 participants who had chronic tendinosis (rotator cuff, wrist extensor, wrist flexor, hip abductor, proximal hamstring, patellar, or Achilles) confirmed via ultrasound, failed conservative treatment, and did not have tendon tears, known coagulopathy, or systemic illnesses. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to PNT (n = 19) or PNT + LR-PRP (n = 21). Participants and outcomes assessors were blinded to treatment assignments. PNT was performed with 20-30 passes of a 22-gauge needle under ultrasound guidance, with 1% lidocaine given outside the tendon. LR-PRP was processed from whole blood (30-60 mL) and injected into the affected tendon using the same PNT technique. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was current numerical rating scale pain at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were average pain, function, general well-being, and sleep quality at 6, 52, and 104 weeks. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, there were no significant differences between groups over time for any of the outcomes (P > .05). Between-group analyses showed significantly lower current Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01833598.
To assess the utility of a 2D dynamic HASTE sequence in assessment of cervical spine flexion-extension, specifically (1) comparing dynamic spondylolisthesis to radiographs and (2) assessing dynamic contact upon or deformity of the cord. Methods: : Patients with a dynamic flexion-extension sagittal 2D HASTE sequence in addition to routine cervical spine sequences were identified. Static and dynamic listhesis was first determined on flexion-extension radiographs reviewed in consensus. Blinded assessment of the dynamic HASTE sequence was independently performed by 2 radiologists for (1) listhesis and translation during flexion-extension and (2) dynamic spinal cord impingement (cord contact or deformity between neutral, flexion and extension). Results: 32 scans in 32 patients (9 males, 23 females) met inclusion criteria acquired on 1.5 T (n = 15) and 3 T (n = 17) scanners. The mean acquisition time was 51.8 s (range 20-95 seconds). Dynamic translation was seen in 14 patients on flexion-extension radiographs compared to 12 (reader 1) and 13 (reader 2) patients on HASTE, with 90.6 % agreement (K = 0.83; p = 0.789). In all cases dynamic listhesis was ≤3 mm translation with one patient showing dynamic listhesis in the range 4− 6 mm. Four cases (13 %) demonstrated deformity of the cord between flexion-extension, not present in the neutral position. For cord impingement there was strong interreader agreement (K = 0.93) and the paired sample Wilcoxon signed rank test found no significant difference between the impingement scores of the two readers (p = 0.787). Conclusions: : A sagittal dynamic flexion-extension HASTE sequence provides a rapid addition to standard MRI cervical spine protocols, which may useful for assessment of dynamic spondylolisthesis and cord deformity.
10519 Background: An MCED test (Galleri, GRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA) intended to complement recommended screening has been in clinical use since 04/2021. Here, we report RW clinical experience across age, sex, ordering site, and use case with the initial ~53,000 tests. Methods: This cell-free DNA-based MCED test uses a targeted methylation assay and a machine learning classification algorithm to detect a cancer signal (CS) and predict CS origin (CSO). This report includes tests returned from 04/20/2021 to 12/31/2022 on individuals aged ≥22 years (yrs) and excludes tests from clinical studies and sites limiting external data sharing, and repeat tests. Systematic collection of outcomes for cases with a “CS detected” (CSD) result was completed for a limited subset and continues via a rigorously controlled quality assurance (QA) program. Results: Tests were ordered and processed from across all US states (results returned, 98.9%; mean turnaround time, 6.7 business days). Among the 53,134 tests with results returned, CSD rate (CSDR) was was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.9-1.0; 510/53134), generally higher in males (1.1% [1.0-1.2; 313/29201]) vs females (0.8% [0.7-0.9; 197/23933]), and comparable to expected CSDR (males 1.07%; females 0.96%) as modeled based on MCED test performance and cancer incidence from SEER. CSDR increased with age (Table), which was a significant predictor of CSDR (p < 2e-13). In males and females, 67.4% and 61.9% of CSOs represented cancers without (w/o) recommended population screening, respectively. Early data from the QA program from an initial limited subset of CSD cases showed that a CSD result was associated with a diagnosis of invasive cancer across multiple cancers (eg, anus, breast, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, prostate, sarcoma), including stage I and II cancers. Conclusions: RW experience with the MCED test was consistent with previous large-scale clinical studies with an average CSDR of 1.0%, which increased with age. The test detected a CS and predicted CSO across multiple cancers, including early-stage cancers and cancers w/o recommended screening. This indicates that the MCED test can reliably detect a CS, which is essential to support population screening. Follow-up of CSD cases is ongoing through the QA program and will allow for future reporting of RW outcomes. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.