Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
, 98 (51), e18358

Platelet-rich Plasma vs Corticosteroids for Elbow Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Platelet-rich Plasma vs Corticosteroids for Elbow Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ang Li et al. Medicine (Baltimore).

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) vs corticosteroids for treatment of patients with lateral elbow epicondylitis.

Methods: A literature search was performed in EMBASE, Medline, the Cochrane Library and PubMed. Randomized controlled studies comparing PRP with corticosteroids for the treatment of epicondylitis were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included trials. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analyses. The overall effect size of each anesthetic was calculated as the weighted average of the inverse variance of the study-specific estimates.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in this review. The data from 2 studies were unavailable for meta-analysis, and the systematic review criteria were just achieved. Local corticosteroid injection yielded a significantly superior Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 4 weeks (WMD, 11.90; 95% CI: 7.72 to 16.08; P < .00001; heterogeneity, χ = 0, I = 0%, P = 1.00) and 8 weeks (WMD, 6.29; 95% CI: 2.98 to 9.60; P = .0002, χ = 0, I = 0%, P = 1.00). Otherwise, it was noteworthy that a significantly lower VAS score (WMD, -2.61; 95% CI: -5.18 to -0.04; P = .05; heterogeneity, χ = 29.85, I = 97%, P < .00001) and DASH score (WMD, -7.73; 95% CI: -9.99 to -5.46; P < .00001, χ = 0.20, I = 0%, P = .66) existed in the PRP regimen than in the steroid regimen at the 24-week follow-up. More effective treatments were achieved in the PRP-treated patients than in the patients treated with corticosteroids (WMD, 3.33; 95% CI: 1.81 to 6.14; P = .000; heterogeneity, χ = 0.43, I = 0%, P = .51).

Conclusions: Local corticosteroid injections demonstrated favorable outcomes compared with those of local PRP treatments for lateral elbow epicondylitis during the short-term follow-up period (4 weeks and 8 weeks post-treatment). Otherwise, at the long-term follow-up (24 weeks post-treatment), PRP injections had improved pain and function more effectively than corticosteroid injections.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for the VAS pain scores.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for the MAYO index for elbows.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot for the DASH scores.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Risk of bias assessment of the included trials.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot for the effective treatment rates.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Smidt N, van der Windt DA. Tennis elbow in primary care. BMJ 2006;333:927–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tosti R, Jennings J, Sewards JM. Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. Am J Med 2013;126:357.e351-356. - PubMed
    1. Krogh TP, Bartels EM, Ellingsen T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of injection therapies in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:1435–46. - PubMed
    1. Behrens SB, Deren ME, Matson AP, et al. A review of modern management of lateral epicondylitis. Phys Sportsmed 2012;40:34–40. - PubMed
    1. Wong SM, Hui AC, Tong PY, et al. Treatment of lateral epicondylitis with botulinum toxin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:793–7. - PubMed

Substances

Feedback