Background: Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, no consensus has been established regarding the number of injections required to observe a therapeutic effect. Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of single versus multiple PRP injections in the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted for RCTs published between 1970 and 2019 that compared the effect of single versus multiple PRP injections on pain and functionality in patients with knee OA. Searched databases included MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A data extraction form was designed to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcomes of interest data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes. Results: We included 5 clinical trials with a low-moderate risk of bias that reported data for 301 patients. Meta-analysis showed that, at 6 months after the intervention, single and multiple (double or triple) injections had similar pain improvement, with no significant differences (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.61 [95% CI, −1.09 to 2.31]; I 2 = 97%; P = .48). A significant improvement in knee functionality was observed in favor of multiple injections (SMD, 2.29 [95% CI, 0.45-4.12]; I 2 = 97%; P = .01). Subanalysis showed that the significant improvement was only evident for the results of single versus triple injections (SMD, 3.12 [95% CI, 0.64-5.60]; I 2 = 97%; P = .01). Conclusion: According to our results, a single injection was as effective as multiple PRP injections in pain improvement; however, multiple injections seemed more effective in joint functionality than a single injection at 6 months. We consider that the available evidence is still insufficient, and future research on this specific topic is needed to confirm our results.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of arthrotomy, when compared with arthroscopy, in the treatment of adults with septic arthritis of any joint. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing arthrotomy and arthroscopy as therapeutic approaches in patients with septic arthritis of any joint. The main outcome was the re-infection rate. A metaanalysis was performed using the generic inverse variance method with random or fixed effects model depending on heterogeneity between studies. Heterogeneity was tested with the I 2 statistic index. Results Twenty studies with 10,249 patients treated by arthrotomy or arthroscopy were evaluated. We observed a significant lower risk of re-infection (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; p = 0.0002) and complications (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.12-1.55]; p = 0.001) rate as well as less hospital stay (mean difference [MD], 0.57 days [95% CI, 0.10-1.05]; p = 0.02) favouring arthroscopic intervention. The subanalysis indicated that patients with knee (OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.17-1.92]; p = 0.001) and shoulder (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.00-1.53]; p = 0.04) septic arthritis intervened by arthrotomy had a higher risk of re-infection. A lower number of hospitalization days (MD, 0.89 days [95% CI, 0.31-1.47]; p = 0.003) and a lower risk for complications (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.04-1.52]; p = 0.02) were observed in patients treated with arthroscopy after septic knee arthritis. Conclusions Available evidence suggests that patients with septic arthritis of the knee and shoulder treated by arthroscopy have less risk of re-infection than those treated by arthrotomy. The quality of the body of evidence is still insufficient to reach reliable conclusions. PROSPERO trial registration number CRD42020176044. Date registration: April 28, 2020.

No abstract