Comparison of the effects of platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection in rotator cuff disease treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Yundong Peng,Fengxing Li,Yue Ding,Xianghong Sun,Guanglan Wang,Shaohui Jia,Cheng Zheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.01.037
Abstract:Hypothesis: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids are used to treat rotator cuff diseases. However, few reviews have compared the effects of these 2 treatments. In this study, we compared the effects of PRP and corticosteroid injection on the prognosis of rotator cuff diseases. Materials and methods: According to the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Review of Interventions, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched comprehensively. Two independent authors screened suitable studies and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PRP and corticosteroid in the treatment of rotator cuff injuries were included, as measured by clinical function and pain during different follow-up periods. Results: Nine studies with 469 patients were included in this review. In short-term treatment, corticosteroids were superior to PRP in the improvement of Constant, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference [MD] -5.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.26, 0.06; P = .05 and MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.68, -0.07; P = .03 and MD -6.67, 95% CI -12.85, -0.49; P = .03, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups at midterm (P > .05), and the recovery of the Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores in PRP treatment was significantly better than that in corticosteroid treatment in the long term (MD: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.68, 1.74; P < .00001 and MD: 6.96, 95% CI: 3.90, 9.61; P < .00001, respectively). In pain reduction based on visual analog scale score, corticosteroids led to better pain reduction (MD: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.03, 1.64; P = .04), but no significant difference was observed in pain reduction between the 2 groups in the any term (P > .05). However, these differences did not reach the minimum clinically important difference. Conclusions: Current analysis showed that corticosteroids have better efficacy in short term, whereas PRP is more beneficial for long-term recovery. However, no difference was observed in the mid-term efficacy between the 2 groups. Randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes are also needed to determine the optimal treatment.