PRP and KNEE

by | Dec 5, 2019 | PRP, PRP and KNEE

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Focused Shock Waves in the Treatment of Jumper’s Knee in Athletes

  1. Mario Vetrano, MD*,†,
  2. Anna Castorina, MD†,
  3. Maria Chiara Vulpiani, MD†,
  4. Rossella Baldini, PhD‡,
  5. Antonio Pavan, MD§ and
  6. Andrea Ferretti, MD?

+Author Affiliations


  1. †Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

  2. ‡Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

  3. §Department of Immunohematology and Transfusion, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

  4. ?Orthopaedic Unit and Kirk Kilgour Sports Injury Centre, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

  5. Investigation performed at the Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
  1. ?*Mario Vetrano, MD, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035-1039, Rome, Italy 00189 (email:mariovetrano@gmail.com).

Abstract

Background: Tendinopathies represent a serious challenge for orthopaedic surgeons involved in treatment of athletes.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in athletes with jumper’s knee.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: Forty-six consecutive athletes with jumper’s knee were selected for this study and randomized into 2 treatment groups: 2 autologous PRP injections over 2 weeks under ultrasound guidance (PRP group; n = 23), and 3 sessions of focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy (2.400 impulses at 0.17-0.25 mJ/mm2 per session) (ESWT group; n = 23). The outcome measures were Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment–Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and modified Blazina scale. A reviewer who was blinded as to the group allocation of participants performed outcome assessments before treatment and at 2, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Nonparametric tests were used for within-group (Friedman/Wilcoxon test) and between-group (Kruskal-Wallis/Fisher test) testing, and the significance level was set at .05.

Results: The 2 groups were homogeneous in terms of age, sex, level of sports participation, and pretreatment clinical status. Patients in both groups showed statistically significant improvement of symptoms at all follow-up assessments. The VISA-P, VAS, and modified Blazina scale scores showed no significant differences between groups at 2-month follow-up (P = .635, .360, and .339, respectively). The PRP group showed significantly better improvement than the ESWT group in VISA-P, VAS scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and modified Blazina scale score at 12-month follow-up (P < .05 for all).

Conclusion: Therapeutic injections of PRP lead to better midterm clinical results compared with focused ESWT in the treatment of jumper’s knee in athletes.