We can conclude that the use of PRP is an effective treatment method for patients with plantar fasciitis who do not respond to conservative treatment because PRP demonstrates an efficacy equal to that of steroids. However, the cost and the time for preparation the PRP are two of the disadvantages of this treatment.

Although glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate have showed beneficial effects on joint tissues in osteoarthritis (OA), their therapeutic use in the clinical setting is still debatable. Hence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to investigate the efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate on knee OA symptoms. Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of orally administered glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate on OA symptoms using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and/or the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and generic inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was tested using the I statistic index. Treatments with glucosamine and chondroitin were found to significantly reduce pain in VAS [weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.41 mm, 95% CI - 14.31, - 0.51, p = 0.04 and WMD - 8.35 mm, 95% CI - 11.84, - 4.85, p < 0.00001, respectively]. Their combination did not show this behavior (WMD - 0.28 mm, 95% CI - 8.87, 8.32, p = 0.95). None of the glucosamine, chondroitin or their combination had a significant positive effect on the total WOMAC index and its subscores. Oral supplementation with glucosamine or chondroitin sulfate reduces pain in knee OA. However, there is no additional effect using both therapeutic agents in combination for the management of symptomatic knee OA.

No abstract

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