Complete the 2 tables using the article attached. See the example for guidance .

Clinical Study Platelet-Rich Plasma for Sport-Active Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Limited Return to Sport

Sante Alessandro Altamura ,1 Alessandro Di Martino ,1 Luca Andriolo ,1

Angelo Boffa,1 Stefano Zaffagnini,1 Annarita Cenacchi,2 Maria Stella Zagarella,2

and Giuseppe Filardo 3

1Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy 2Servizio Trasfusionale Unico Metropolitano, Bologna, Italy 3Applied and Translational Research (ATR) Center IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Alessandro Di Martino; [email protected]

Received 6 June 2019; Revised 25 November 2019; Accepted 18 December 2019; Published 31 January 2020

Academic Editor: Willeke F. Daamen

Copyright © 2020 Sante Alessandro Altamura et al. -is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Objective. To evaluate a cohort of sport-active patients suffering from cartilage degeneration and OA, in terms of clinical outcome and return to sport (RTS) after platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injective treatment. Design. -is study included forty-seven sport-active patients≤50 years old with unilateral symptomatic knee cartilage degeneration or OA. Patients received 3 PRP injections and were prospectively evaluated at baseline and then at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up by IKDC subjective EQ-VAS, and Tegner scores. Furthermore, patients were asked about their RTS, in terms of return to any sport level or to their activity level before symptoms onset. Results. IKDC subjective score improved significantly at all follow-ups, changing from 59.2±13.6 to 70.6±13 at 12 months and to 76.7±12.5 at 24 months (p<0.0005). A similar outcome was observed with the EQ-VAS score. Tegner score improved from 3.6±1.4 to 4.8±0.9 at 24 months (p<0.0005), but only 76.6% of patients returned to some sport activity and 48.9% to the same activity level. A lower presymptoms Tegner score was associated with a higher RTS rate, both at any level (p � 0.024) and at the same presymptoms level (p<0.0005). Conclusions. Sport-active patients affected by knee OA can benefit from PRP injections, with pain and function improvement over time. However, results are less satisfactory in terms of RTS since only half can achieve the same sport level as before the onset of symptoms. Patients undergoing PRP treatment should be made aware of their low chances to go back to high-impact sport activities.

1. Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common orthopaedic condition characterized by joint pain and decreased function, generally affecting patients over 50 years old: about 25% of ageing people experience pain and other OA-related symptoms, which may be severe and negatively affect their quality of life and productivity, with a high social and economic impact [1–5]. Moreover, an increasing incidence of cartilage de- generation and OA, often related to sport activity, has also been observed in younger patients [6]. In fact, chondral lesions and OA are among the most common causes of knee pain and performance deterioration in athletes, and previous

studies have shown a higher incidence of knee OA in athletes compared to the general population [3, 6]. -e reason can be found in the continuous cartilage solicitation during physical activity, leading to its premature degeneration with subsequent exposure of subchondral bone that is particularly rich in nociceptive receptors. Furthermore, cartilage damage may cause the release of catabolic and proinflammatory factors generating a vicious circle of painful joint degen- eration [7], finally forcing athletes to quit sport.

Total knee arthroplasty represents a common end stage solution for older patients affected by OA, but it does not represent a suitable option in younger patients, due to their high expectations and functional demands. In fact, whereas

Hindawi BioMed Research International Volume 2020, Article ID 8243865, 6 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8243865

knee arthroplasty can offer a satisfying functional recovery in older patients, younger patients achieve worse results, with significantly more functional limitations and risks related to the high incidence of failure and the need for subsequent revision arthroplasty [8]. Recently, a database study on 54.000 knee arthroplasties showed that joint re- placement in patients under 55 years old increased the lifetime risk for revision up to 35%. -is is questioning the impact of the increasing trend of more knee replacements in the younger patient’s population [9]. Unfortunately, al- though alternative surgical procedures relying on scaffolds, tissue engineering, and cell transplantation have shown promising results in young patients with traumatic lesions, they provide less satisfying results and a low rate of return to sport in sport-active patients affected by cartilage degen- erative lesions and OA [10, 11].

Intra-articular injective treatments emerged as an al- ternative minimally invasive option to provide a clinical benefit and delay more sacrificing procedures while avoiding the impact and risks of surgical treatments in these active patients. In the past few years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been proposed for the treatment of knee OA and its use is now supported by increasing evidence [12–17]. Its rational lays on its anabolic and anti-inflammatory properties due to growth factors and cytokines released by platelets [18–21]. Preclinical evidence showed that PRP might promote a favorable environment for joint tissue healing [22]. Nev- ertheless, although recent reviews and meta-analysis showed good results using PRP for the treatment of OA [16, 22–24], the literature is still very sparse on the use of PRP for the treatment of active patients, and more evidence is needed to document potentials and limitations in this population, both in terms of clinical improvement and return to sport.

-us, the aim of this study was to evaluate a cohort of sport-active patients suffering from cartilage degeneration and OA, in terms of clinical outcome and return to previous sport activities after PRP injective treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients Selection. -is study was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee and the Internal Review Board (blinded) and written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. Patients were enrolled according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) unilateral symptomatic knee with history of chronic pain (at least 4 months) or swelling, (2) imaging findings of cartilage degeneration (Kellgren–Lawrence score of 0 but with chondropathy de- tected by magnetic resonance imaging) or OA (Kell- gren–Lawrence score of 1-3) (3) playing a sport at any level, (4) ≤50 years old. -e exclusion criteria were age greater than 50 years, Kellgren–Lawrence score more than 3, major axial deviation (varus 5°, valgus 5°), focal chondral or osteochondral lesion, presence of any concomitant knee lesion causing pain or swelling (i.e., meniscal or ligamentous injury), inflammatory arthropathy, hematological diseases, severe cardiovascular diseases, infections, immunode- pression, treatment with anticoagulants or antiaggregants, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the 5 days

before blood harvesting, hemoglobin lower than 11 g/dL, and platelet count lower than 150,000/mm3.

Forty-nine patients were included; two were lost at follow-up while 47 were evaluated over time, with a mean age at treatment of 41.1±7.1 years and a mean BMI of 25.0±3.0; 15 patients had previously undergone knee sur- gery and 12 had received injective treatment with hyaluronic acid or corticosteroids.

2.2. Patients Treatment and Evaluation. -is study was performed at the outpatient department of a highly spe- cialized orthopedics referral center. A single 150 mL unit of peripheral venous blood was harvested from each patient at our Hospital Transfusion Medicine Service. Samples were centrifuged twice: first at 1480 rpm for 6 minutes to separate erythrocytes and then at 3400 rpm for 15 minutes to con- centrate platelets, which provided 20 mL of PRP divided into 4 small 5 mL units. One unit was sent to the laboratory for quality tests, and 3 units were stored at − 30°C to be used later for treatment, after being thawed in a dry thermostat at 37°C for 30 minutes. Before the injection, PRP was activated by adding 10% calcium chloride. -is preparation method was previously shown to reach a number of platelets per milliliter 4.6±1.4 times higher than its baseline blood values and a mean concentration of leukocytes of 1.1±0.5 times com- pared with normal blood values [25].

Patients received 3 weekly intra-articular injections of PRP. After the injection, they were sent home with indi- cations to use ice or other cold therapy on the affected area to relieve pain and to avoid high-impact activities on the treated leg. After the injections, mild activities were allowed, and, subsequently, a gradual return to normal sport or recreational activities was allowed as tolerated. Patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline and then at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after their last injection; this evaluation included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), and Tegner score. Furthermore, patients were asked about their return to sport during the follow-up period, both in terms of return to any sport level or to their activity level before symptoms onset.

2.3. Statistical Analysis. All continuous data were expressed in terms of mean and standard deviation of the mean, and the categorical data were expressed as frequency and per- centages. -e Saphiro–Wilk test was performed to test the normality of continuous variables. -e Levene test was performed to assess the homogeneity of variances. -e Repeated Measures General Linear Model (GLM) with Sidak test for multiple comparisons was performed to assess the differences at different follow-up times in the IKDC sub- jective score and the Tegner score. -e Friedman non- parametric test, followed by the Wilcoxon post hoc pairwise comparison corrected by Bonferroni method for multiple comparisons, was used for the differences at different follow- up times in the EQ-VAS score and the objective IKDC. -e ANOVA test was performed to assess the between-groups differences of continuous, normally distributed and

2 BioMed Research International

homoscedastic data; the Mann–Whitney test was used otherwise. -e ANOVA test followed by the Scheffè post hoc pairwise comparison was also used to assess the among groups differences of continuous, normally distributed and homoscedastic data, the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Mann–Whitney test with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison was used otherwise. -e Spearman Rank Correlation was used to assess the correlation between age or BMI and the observed scores.

For all tests p<0.05 was considered significant. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.19.0

(IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

No major adverse events were reported after treatment, and a statistically significant improvement in all scores was observed.

In particular, the IKDC subjective score improved sig- nificantly at all follow-up times compared to the basal evaluation, changing from 59.2±13.6 to 68.0±13.9 at 2 months, 69.9±13.8 at 6 months, 70.6±13 at 12 months, and reaching a maximum of 76.7±12.5 at 24 months (all p<0.0005). Furthermore, the IKDC score at the last follow- up (24 months) was significantly higher than in all other follow-ups (p � 0.032 vs. 12 months) (Figure 1).

-e EQ-VAS score also showed a statistically significant improvement from 73.6±11.9 at basal evaluation to 80.6±11.6 at 2 months (p � 0.004), 82.2±9.1 at 6 months (p<0.0005 vs. basal), and 81.0±10.4 at 12 months (p � 0.001 vs. basal), with a further improvement at 24 months follow-up (85.5±8.6, p<0.0005 vs. basal, p � 0.05 vs. 12 months follow-up) (Figure 2).

-e activity level, evaluated by Tegner score, showed a statistically significant improvement from pretreatment level (3.6±1.4) to 2 months follow-up (4.4±1.4, p � 0.002), with scores remaining stable over time and reaching 4.8±0.9 at the 24 months follow-up (p<0.0005 vs. basal). -e activity level after treatment did not reach the level before the onset of symptoms (6.6±1.4, p<0.0005) (Figure 3). Regarding RTS, 36 patients (76.6%) returned to some kind of sport activity, 23 patients (48.9%) were able to return to the same presymptoms activity level.

Further analysis was performed to investigate parame- ters influencing the clinical outcome at the final follow-up. -e Spearman correlation showed that Age and BMI did not significantly influence the score obtained. -e Man- n–Whitney test showed that previous surgery and previous intra-articular injections did not significantly influence the score obtained. With regard to RTS, rates were not affected by BMI, previous surgery, or previous intra-articular in- jections. Conversely, a lower presymptoms Tegner score was associated with a higher rate of RTS, both at any level (p � 0.024) and at the same presymptoms level (p<0.0005).

4. Discussion

-e main finding of this study was that PRP injective treatment provided a significant clinical improvement in a

cohort of sport-active patients affected by OA, allowing the majority of them to return to some sport activity. However, only half of them were able to return to the same level of sport activity as before the onset of symptoms.

-e sport-active population affected by knee OA rep- resents a challenge for clinicians, due to the presence of impaired knees in relatively young patients who still have high expectations and functional requirements. In this light, the use of platelet derived growth factors has been proposed as a promising treatment, providing anti-inflammatory and anabolic effects, while avoiding the impact and risks of surgical strategies to address OA [6]. -e use of PRP to treat knee OA is being supported by increasing evidence. Its safety and efficacy were proved in randomized controlled trials versus placebo, proving the effects of PRP, with pain re- duction and improvement in function and clinical scores at short-term follow-up [12, 14, 15, 26–29]. However, in terms of efficacy in addressing OA joints, the evidence about any possible superiority of PRP versus hyaluronic acid (HA) is more controversial. PRP was first shown to be more effective in reducing pain than HA injections at six months follow-up in a randomized controlled trial by Sánchez et al. [30] in 2012. -e same results were confirmed in the same year by Cerza et al. [31] in a large randomized controlled trial on 120

6m2mBasal

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 12m 24m

Figure 1: IKDC subjective score at basal level, at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0

6 m2 mBasal 12 m 24 m

Figure 2: EQ-VAS score at basal level, at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up.

BioMed Research International 3

patients. In the following years, a recent review [24] and several other trials confirmed these findings [12, 14, 17, 32] showing, besides no increased risk of adverse events, a significant improvement in short-term exceeding what is considered a minimum clinically important difference.

However, the literature currently lacks evidence on the potential of PRP for the treatment of knee OA in sport-active patients. -is is particularly important, as functional sport requirements might be difficult to reach, and positive findings in the overall population cannot be directly translated to sport-active patients. Investigating this aspect is of major importance also in consideration of the contro- versial results documented for PRP for other sport-related pathologies, that is, tendon and muscle injuries [33, 34]. In the literature, only one research specifically focused on this topic. In a randomized controlled trial, Papalia et al. [35] compared PRP and HA outcomes in a cohort of 47 end career professional soccer players, 23 receiving PRP and 24 HA. -ey observed a significant improvement in clinical scores and reduction of pain in both groups, with no sta- tistical difference at 12 months follow-up. Although PRP showed some efficacy even in this challenging population, results were limited. Moreover, results were reported only at short-term follow-up, without documenting treatment effect duration. -is is an important aspect, as the benefit of PRP is controversial at the longer term, as shown by a recently published randomized double-blind trial questioning the overall benefit of this approach in terms of improvement entity and duration [36]. Finally, this trial did not address one of the major outcomes for these demanding patients, as it did not properly assess sport and activity level and, in particular, return to preinjury sport level.

Return to sport actually represents one of the most important outcomes for this type of patients. In the present study, 47 sport-active patients were treated with 3 injections of PRP and evaluated for up to 24 months of follow-up, not only looking at clinical scores but also addressing specific sport-related questions. In this population, a significant improvement in all scores was reported without significant adverse events related to treatment, confirming the evidence present in the literature that suggests that PRP is safe and

effective to treat knee OA [16, 22, 23]. Moreover, results further improved after 12 months: IKDC and EQ-VAS continued to improve over time, with a significant difference between 12 months follow-up and 24 months follow-up. -is is an important aspect, previously underinvestigated in the literature, which could be explained with the effects induced by PRP at the joint level. -e reduction of in- flammation as well as anabolic stimulation might favor the normalization of joint homeostasis: this can allow active patients to go back to sport activity, which in turn could further help maintaining joint function and therefore clinical improvement, as supported by the positive effects of exercise for the management of OA [37].

Sport-active patients affected by knee OA can benefit from PRP injections, with pain reduction and function improvement over time. However, this benefit does not directly translate into a successful sport-related outcome, which represents the most important goal for active patients aiming at returning to sport activity. Despite experiencing some benefits, only 3 out of 4 patients returned to some kind of sport activity, and actually only half of them were able to return to the same activity level. -ese aspects can be explained considering that sportive patients with OA are likely to reduce their activity level because of OA-related symptoms, and this is generally worsening over time, as a consequence of this suboptimal training practice. On the other hand, it is also true that patients performing contact or pivoting sports subject their joints to higher stress, which could maximize this negative influence of aging. -e chal- lenge to improve joint status at a level necessary for sport activity via PRP injection is further supported by the analysis of factors influencing RTS. In fact, the previous activity level was found to be the most important aspect related to the chance to RTS at 24 months of follow-up. In particular, patients with a lower presymptoms Tegner score had more chances to RTS, both at any level and at the same pre- symptoms level. -is means that the more demanding the activity on the joint is, the more difficult it is to provide a sufficient benefit by PRP injections. -us, when PRP treatment is successful patients might go back to some sport, but often they adapt their activity level, as suggested by the low average Tegner score reached, which mainly corre- sponds to low impact or no-contact sport activities, even if it is probably not the best evaluation score to thoroughly investigate this aspect.

-e present study has some limitations: no comparison with a control group was performed. Considering the limited results documented, further studies should explore PRP injections in the sport-active population also in light of the results provided by other alternative options. Moreover, no imaging evaluation was performed to document the effects of PRP at the tissue level, since the main purpose of this study was to investigate the sport activity level. Finally, the series was large enough to demonstrate an overall sig- nificant improvement and the potential in terms of RTS, but it might be insufficient (power <0.4) to find possible dif- ferences related to other aspects, such as results in different subpopulations according to age, sex, activity level, and so forth.

Pretreat

95 %

C I

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 6 m2 mBasal 12 m 24 m

Figure 3: Tegner score at presymptoms and basal pretreatment level, at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up.

4 BioMed Research International

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the results of this study are of clinical relevance as they document, in the largest cohort on this topic, and specifically focusing on RTS after up to 24 months, the potential of PRP in the sport- active population. -ese patients should have the right expectations, as they might experience a clinical improve- ment insufficient to recover their full function.

5. Conclusions

Sport-active patients affected by knee OA can benefit from PRP injections, with good results over time both in terms of pain and function improvement. However, results are less satisfactory in terms of RTS since only half of the patients can achieve the same sport level as before the onset of symptoms. RTS is challenging and patients undergoing PRP treatment should be aware of the low chances to go back to high-impact sport activities.

Data Availability

-e data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

-e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] B. M. Alkan, F. Fidan, A. Tosun, and Ö. Ardıçoğlu, “Quality of life and self-reported disability in patients with knee osteo- arthritis,” Modern Rheumatology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 166–171, 2014.

[2] C. Cooper, S. Snow, T. E. McAlindon et al., “Risk factors for the incidence and progression of radiographic knee osteo- arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 995–1000, 2000.

[3] S. Drawer and C. W. Fuller, “Propensity for osteoarthritis and lower limb joint pain in retired professional soccer players,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 402–408, 2001.

[4] D. T. Felson and M. C. Nevitt, “Epidemiologic studies for osteoarthritis: new versus conventional study design ap- proaches,” Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 783–797, 2004.

[5] R. C. Lawrence, D. T. Felson, C. G. Helmick et al., “Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part II,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 26–35, 2008.

[6] F. Vannini, T. Spalding, L. Andriolo et al., “Sport and early osteoarthritis: the role of sport in aetiology, progression and treatment of knee osteoarthritis,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1786–1796, 2016.

[7] A. W. A. Baltzer, C. Moser, S. A. Jansen, and R. Krauspe, “Autologous conditioned serum (orthokine) is an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Carti- lage, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 152–160, 2009.

[8] O. Robertsson, M. Dunbar, T. Pehrsson, K. Knutson, and L. Lidgren, “Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in

Sweden,” Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 262–267, 2000.

[9] L. E. Bayliss, D. Culliford, A. P. Monk et al., “-e effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study,” 0e Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10077, pp. 1424–1430, 2017.

[10] G. Filardo, F. Vannini, M. Marcacci et al., “Matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation for cartilage regen- eration in osteoarthritic knees,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 95–100, 2013.

[11] S. Zaffagnini, F. Vannini, A. Di Martino et al., “Low rate of return to pre-injury sport level in athletes after cartilage surgery: a 10-year follow-up study,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 2502–2510, 2018.

[12] H. Elik, B. Dogu, F. Yilmaz, F. A. Begoglu, and B. Kuran, “-e efficiency of platelet rich plasma treatment in patients with knee osteoarthritis,” Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 127–138, 2019.

[13] G. Filardo, E. Kon, U. G. Longo et al., “Non-surgical treat- ments for the management of early osteoarthritis,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1775–1785, 2016.

[14] K.-Y. Lin, C.-C. Yang, C.-J. Hsu, M.-L. Yeh, and J.-H. Renn, “Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma is superior to hyaluronic acid or saline solution in the treatment of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, triple-parallel, placebo-controlled clinical trial,” Arthroscopy: 0e Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 106–117, 2019.

[15] E. I. Sen, M. A. Yildirim, T. Yesilyurt, F. N. Kesiktas, and D. Diracoglu, “Effects of platelet-rich plasma on the clinical outcomes and cartilage thickness in patients with knee os- teoarthritis,” Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabili- tation, vol. 1–9, 2019.

[16] T. Southworth, N. Naveen, T. Tauro, N. Leong, and B. Cole, “-e use of platelet-rich plasma in symptomatic knee oste- oarthritis,” 0e Journal of Knee Surgery, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 37–45, 2019.

[17] M. Tavassoli, N. Janmohammadi, A. Hosseini, S. Khafri, and S. M. Esmaeilnejad-Ganji, “Single- and double-dose of platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial,” World Journal of Orthopedics, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 310–326, 2019.

[18] E. Anitua, I. Andia, B. Ardanza, P. Nurden, and A. Nurden, “Autologous platelets as a source of proteins for healing and tissue regeneration,” 0rombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 4–15, 2004.

[19] T. N. Castillo, M. A. Pouliot, H. J. Kim, and J. L. Dragoo, “Comparison of growth factor and platelet concentration from commercial platelet-rich plasma separation systems,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 266–271, 2011.

[20] B. Di Matteo, G. Filardo, E. Kon, and M. Marcacci, “Platelet- rich plasma: evidence for the treatment of patellar and achilles tendinopathy-a systematic review,” Musculoskeletal Surgery, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2015.

[21] R. Malhotra, V. Kumar, B. Garg et al., “Role of autologous platelet-rich plasma in treatment of long-bone nonunions: a prospective study,” Musculoskeletal Surgery, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 243–248, 2015.

[22] G. Filardo, E. Kon, A. Roffi, B. Di Matteo, M. L. Merli, and M. Marcacci, “Platelet-rich plasma: why intra-articular? A

BioMed Research International 5

systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical evidence on PRP for joint degeneration,” Knee Surgery, Sports Trau- matology, Arthroscopy, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 2459–2474, 2015.

[23] K.-V. Chang, C.-Y. Hung, F. Aliwarga, T.-G. Wang, D.-S. Han, and W.-S. Chen, “Comparative effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma injections for treating knee joint cartilage degenerative pathology: a systematic review and meta-anal- ysis,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 562–575, 2014.

[24] W.-L. Dai, A.-G. Zhou, H. Zhang, and J. Zhang, “Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Arthroscopy: 0e Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 659–670, 2017.

[25] G. Filardo, B. Di Matteo, A. Di Martino et al., “Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections show no superiority versus viscosupplementation,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1575–1582, 2015.

[26] E. Kon, L. Engebretsen, P. Verdonk, S. Nehrer, and G. Filardo, “Clinical outcomes of knee osteoarthritis treated with an autologous protein solution injection: a 1-year pilot double- blinded randomized controlled trial,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 171–180, 2018.

[27] S. Patel, M. S. Dhillon, S. Aggarwal, N. Marwaha, and A. Jain, “Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 356–364, 2013.

[28] P. A. Smith, “Intra-articular autologous conditioned plasma injections provide safe and efficacious treatment for knee osteoarthritis,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 884–891, 2016.

[29] Y.-T. Wu, K.-C. Hsu, T.-Y. Li, C.-K. Chang, and L.-C. Chen, “Effects of platelet-rich plasma on pain and muscle strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 248– 254, 2018.

[30] M. Sánchez, N. Fiz, J. Azofra et al., “A randomized clinical trial evaluating plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF-Endoret) versus hyaluronic acid in the short-term treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis,” Arthroscopy: 0e Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1070–1078, 2012.

[31] F. Cerza, S. Carnı̀, A. Carcangiu et al., “Comparison between hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma, intra-articular in- filtration in the treatment of gonarthrosis,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2822–2827, 2012.

[32] Y. Huang, X. Liu, X. Xu, and J. Liu, “Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid or corticosteroids for knee osteoarthritis,” Der Orthopäde, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 239–247, 2019.

[33] L. Andriolo, S. A. Altamura, D. Reale, C. Candrian, S. Zaffagnini, and G. Filardo, “Nonsurgical treatments of patellar tendinopathy: multiple injections of platelet-rich plasma are a suitable option: a systematic review and meta- analysis,” Am 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1001–1018, 2018.

[34] A. Grassi, F. Napoli, I. Romandini et al., “Is platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effective in the treatment of acute muscle in- juries? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Sports Med- icine, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 971–989, 2018.

[35] R. Papalia, B. Zampogna, F. Russo et al., “Comparing hybrid hyaluronic acid with PRP in end career athletes with

degenerative cartilage lesions of the knee,” Journal of Bio- logical Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, vol. 30, pp. 17–23, 2016.

[36] A. Di Martino, B. Di Matteo, T. Papio et al., “Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: results at 5 years of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial,” 0e American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 347–354, 2019.

[37] E. Kon, G. Filardo, M. Drobnic et al., “Non-surgical man- agement of early knee osteoarthritis,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 436–449, 2012.

6 BioMed Research International

Copyright of BioMed Research International is the property of Hindawi Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.