BackgroundThe effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) is still controversial. We investigated the effect of PRP injections in patients with knee OA based on decreasing pain, improving function, global assessment and changes regarding joint imaging. Methods We performed a comprehensive, systematic literature search in computerised databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and PEDro) until June 2014 for randomised or nonrandomised controlled trials. These were graded for risk of bias and a level of evidence was provided. If possible, meta-analysis was performed. Results Ten trials were included. In these, intraarticular PRP injections were more effective for pain reduction (mean difference (MD) −2.45; 95% CI −2.92 to −1.98; p value <0.00001 and MD −2.07; 95% CI −2.59 to −1.55; p value <0.00001, single and double PRP injections, respectively) compared with placebo at 6 months postinjection. Intra-articular PRP injections were compared with hyaluronic acid and showed a statistically significant difference in favour of PRP on pain reduction based on the visual analogue scale and numeric rating scale (standardised mean difference −0.92; 95% CI −1.20 to −0.63; p value <0.00001) at 6 months postinjection. Almost all trials revealed a high risk of bias. Conclusions On the basis of the current evidence, PRP injections reduced pain more effectively than did placebo injections in OA of the knee (level of evidence: limited due to a high risk of bias). This significant effect on pain was also seen when PRP injections were compared with hyaluronic acid injections (level of evidence: moderate due to a generally high risk of bias). Additionally, function improved significantly more when PRP injections were compared with controls (limited to moderate evidence). More large randomised studies of good quality and low risk of bias are needed to test whether PRP injections should be a routine part of management of patients with OA of the knee.

Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is one of the most common leg injuries in athletes and soldiers. The incidence of MTSS is reported as being between 4% and 35% in military personnel and athletes. The name given to this condition refers to pain on the posteromedial tibial border during exercise, with pain on palpation of the tibia over a length of at least 5 cm. Histological studies fail to provide evidence that MTSS is caused by periostitis as a result of traction. It is caused by bony resorption that outpaces bone formation of the tibial cortex. Evidence for this overloaded adaptation of the cortex is found in several studies describing MTSS findings on bone scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. The diagnosis is made based on physical examination, although only one study has been conducted on this subject. Additional imaging such as bone, CT and MRI scans has been well studied but is of limited value. The prevalence of abnormal findings in asymptomatic subjects means that results should be interpreted with caution. Excessive pronation of the foot while standing and female sex were found to be intrinsic risk factors in multiple prospective studies. Other intrinsic risk factors found in single prospective studies are higher body mass index, greater internal and external ranges of hip motion, and calf girth. Previous history of MTSS was shown to be an extrinsic risk factor. The treatment of MTSS has been examined in three randomized controlled studies. In these studies rest is equal to any intervention. The use of neoprene or semi-rigid orthotics may help prevent MTSS, as evidenced by two large prospective studies.

No abstract

Chronic degenerative tendinopathies are frequent and difficult to treat. Tendon healing and regeneration may be improved by injecting autologous growth factors obtained from the patient's blood. Autologous growth factors can be injected with autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Electronic databases were searched for prospective clinical trials on treatment with autologous growth factors of patients with chronic tendinopathy. Chronic tendinopathy in this study included wrist extensors, flexors, plantar fasciopathy and patellar tendinopathy. Studies examining the treatment of other tendinopathies were not identified. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database score was used to examine the methodological quality of the assessment, and a qualitative analysis was performed with the levels of evidence. There are many proposed treatment options for chronic tendinopathy. Treatments in the form of injections with autologous whole blood or PRP are increasingly used in clinical practice. There are high expectations of these regenerative injections, and there is a clear need for effective conservative therapies. All studies showed that injections of autologous growth factors (whole blood and PRP) in patients with chronic tendinopathy had a significant impact on improving pain and/or function over time. However, only three studies using autologous whole blood had a high methodological quality assessment, and none of them showed any benefit of an autologous growth factor injection when compared with a control group. At present, there is strong evidence that the use of injections with autologous whole blood should not be recommended. There were no high-quality studies found on PRP treatment. There is limited evidence to support the use of injections with PRP in the management of chronic tendinopathy. There is growing interest in the working mechanisms of autologous growth factors. The amount and mixture of growth factors produced using different cell separating systems are largely unknown and it is also uncertain whether platelet activation prior to injection is necessary. These variables should be taken into account when starting clinical studies. A good experimental model for studying tendinopathy would be helpful for basic research. Future clinical studies using a proper control group, randomization, blinding and validated disease-specific outcome measures for pain and function are needed.

Six trials with high risk of bias showed level-3 or level-4 evidence in favour of stem cell injections in KOA. In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy for KOA.