Platelet Concentration Explains Variability in Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: A High Dose Is Critical for a Positive Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Meta-regression.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE) have been characterized by substantial variability in reported outcomes. The source of this heterogeneity is uncertain. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of estimated platelet concentration on the efficacy of PRP for the management of LE. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: All RCTs evaluating the efficacy of PRP in managing LE were identified. RCTs were classified according to whether the study documented a platelet concentration factor of PRP representing a greater than 3-fold increase over whole blood or a supraphysiological platelet dose (high-dose vs low-dose PRP). The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) in the visual analog scale (VAS) score at latest follow-up. Random-effects and mixed-effects meta-analyses were performed, and meta-regression was used to evaluate whether differences in outcomes after treatment with PRP could be explained by differences in the concentration of PRP used. RESULTS: Overall, 13 RCTs with a total of 791 patients were included in this analysis, with 5 that utilized low-dose PRP and 8 that used high-dose PRP. Meta-analysis of VAS scores reported by studies that used high-dose PRP resulted in an MD of -1.31 (95% CI, -1.87 to -0.75) in favor of PRP over all alternative treatment strategies (P < .001). Meta-analysis of VAS scores reported by studies that used low-dose PRP resulted in an MD of 0.08 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.68), suggesting no difference in the effect between PRP and all alternative treatment strategies (P = .79). The platelet concentration factor of PRP used in each RCT was found to be strongly predictive of the VAS score at final follow-up in meta-regression (P < .001), with 58.5% of the heterogeneity in the outcomes of PRP between studies explained by the platelet concentration factor alone. CONCLUSION: The platelet concentration of PRP may play a significant role in the outcomes of patients with LE. A direct linear relationship was observed between the platelet concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after the management of LE with PRP. Clinicians should ensure a supraphysiological platelet concentration when preparing PRP for the management of LE.
