Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background and objective Low back discomfort is one of the main factors that restrict physical activity, and it is becoming more and more common. Surgery is the best option when all other conservative treatment methods have failed, but it is not a panacea. While local anesthetic-free and combined epidural steroid injections have been used for many years, their usefulness is limited to shorter periods. In the field of orthopedics, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained widespread recognition as an adjuvant component. PRP has been applied to improve tissue repair, both soft and hard. This comparative study aimed to evaluate the potential of PRP as a therapy for low back pain (LBP). Methods We included 64 adult individuals with complaints of LBP. They were classified into two groups: group A underwent a single injection in the afflicted lumbar intervertebral disc (IVD) level with 1.5 ml of methylprednisolone, 1.5 ml 2% lidocaine, and 0.5 ml of saline under rigorous aseptic precautions; in contrast, group B was administered a single injection of 3 milliliters of autologous PRP. Patients' scores on the visual analog scale (VAS), the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ), and the Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) were assessed before and during therapy. Results The data gathered were subjected to statistical analysis. Statistically significant differences were found in the VAS scores between group A (methylprednisolone group) and group B (PRP group) post-one hour (6.0 ±0.74 vs. 6.92 ±0.57) and after three months (5.2 ±0.65 vs. 3.26 ±0.79). Conclusions Our study revealed gradual progressive improvement in the symptoms of patients in the PRP group as indicated by scores on SLRT, VAS, and MODQ. The results were comparable to those who received methylprednisolone injections. There was a statistically significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups, with the PRP group reporting a higher degree of pain reduction, showing that PRP is an effective alternative to epidural steroid infiltration in managing chronic LBP.
Background and objective Low back discomfort is one of the main factors that restrict physical activity, and it is becoming more and more common. Surgery is the best option when all other conservative treatment methods have failed, but it is not a panacea. While local anesthetic-free and combined epidural steroid injections have been used for many years, their usefulness is limited to shorter periods. In the field of orthopedics, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained widespread recognition as an adjuvant component. PRP has been applied to improve tissue repair, both soft and hard. This comparative study aimed to evaluate the potential of PRP as a therapy for low back pain (LBP). Methods We included 64 adult individuals with complaints of LBP. They were classified into two groups: group A underwent a single injection in the afflicted lumbar intervertebral disc (IVD) level with 1.5 ml of methylprednisolone, 1.5 ml 2% lidocaine, and 0.5 ml of saline under rigorous aseptic precautions; in contrast, group B was administered a single injection of 3 milliliters of autologous PRP. Patients' scores on the visual analog scale (VAS), the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ), and the Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) were assessed before and during therapy. Results The data gathered were subjected to statistical analysis. Statistically significant differences were found in the VAS scores between group A (methylprednisolone group) and group B (PRP group) post-one hour (6.0 ±0.74 vs. 6.92 ±0.57) and after three months (5.2 ±0.65 vs. 3.26 ±0.79). Conclusions Our study revealed gradual progressive improvement in the symptoms of patients in the PRP group as indicated by scores on SLRT, VAS, and MODQ. The results were comparable to those who received methylprednisolone injections. There was a statistically significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups, with the PRP group reporting a higher degree of pain reduction, showing that PRP is an effective alternative to epidural steroid infiltration in managing chronic LBP.
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.