Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) at mga Injection Therapy Impormasyon

Ano ito

Ang Platelet-rich plasma, o PRP, ay isang gamutan na gawa mula sa iyong sariling dugo. Ang isang sample ng iyong dugo ay pinoproseso upang konsentrahin ang mga platelet, ang maliliit na cell na karaniwang tumutulong sa paghilom. Ang konsentradong likidong ito ay ituturok pagkatapos sa bahaging masakit.

Maaaring isaalang-alang ng iyong doktor ang PRP para sa ilang iba't ibang problema. Para sa wear-and-tear arthritis sa tuhod, inirerekomenda ang hindi bababa sa dalawang injection, at ang mga epekto ay maaaring tumagal ng hindi bababa sa 24 na linggo [1]. Ginagamit din ito para sa ilang problema sa tendon, gaya ng tennis elbow, kung saan maaari nitong mabawasan ang sakit at mapabuti ang paggana ng braso [2]. Inaalok din ito sa ilang sportspeople na may arthritis sa malalaking joint [3].

Pinag-aaralan pa rin kung paano ito gumagana. Ang ideya ay ang mga konsentradong platelet ay naglalabas ng mga natural healing signal kung saan sila itunurok. Para sa arthritis sa tuhod, ang iba't ibang halo ng PRP ay tila angkop sa iba't ibang yugto: ang isang uri ay maaaring magpakalma ng pamamaga sa simula, habang ang isa naman ay maaaring mas sumuporta sa tissue repair sa mas advanced na arthritis [4]. Para sa tennis elbow, natuklasan sa pananaliksik na ang mas mataas na konsentrasyon ng mga platelet ay nauugnay sa mas malaking ginhawa mula sa mga sintomas [5].

Mahalagang malaman na ang mga ebidensya ay magkahalo. Mas naging mabisa ang PRP kaysa sa placebo (isang dummy injection) para sa isang uri ng tendon inflammation [6], at nagpakita ito ng mas pangmatagalang benepisyo kumpara sa mga cortisone injection para sa tennis elbow sa loob ng 6 at 12 buwan [7]. Ngunit para sa ilang kondisyon, gaya ng Achilles tendon pain o hip-side pain, hindi sinusuportahan ng kasalukuyang pananaliksik ang paggamit nito [8] [9]. Pakikipag-usapan ng iyong doktor sa iyo kung makatwiran ba ang PRP para sa iyong partikular na problema.

Gumagana ba ito?

Ang tapat na sagot ay depende ito sa problemang ginagamot. Para sa wear-and-tear arthritis sa tuhod, natuklasan ng mga review na ang PRP ay maaaring magbawas ng sakit at magpahusay sa paggana ng joint [1]. Ang pagdaragdag ng hyaluronic acid, isang natural na lubricant na matatagpuan sa mga joint, sa injection ay maaaring magbigay ng higit na ginhawa kaysa sa PRP lamang [2]. May ilang pag-aaral din na naghambing sa PRP sa mga injection na gawa mula sa processed fat tissue, at parehong nakatulong sa mga taong may knee arthritis sa loob ng 12 buwan [3].

Para sa tennis elbow, mas magkahalo ang mga resulta. Isang review ang nakatuklas na mas epektibo ang cortisone sa short term, ngunit ang PRP ay nagbigay ng mas magandang resulta sa ika-6 at ika-12 buwan [4]. Gayunpaman, isa pang review ang nakatuklas na walang malinaw na benepisyo ito kumpara sa isang dummy injection [5]. Isang ibang teknik, kung saan ang damaged tendon ay dahan-dahang tinutusok ng karayom (needled), ay gumana nang halos kasing-husay ng PRP [6].

Para sa ilang iba pang problema sa tendon, ang PRP ay nagpakita ng benepisyo kumpara sa cortisone sa medium term [7]. Ngunit para sa sakit sa labas ng balakang (hip), ang kasalukuyang pananaliksik ay hindi sumusuporta sa routine use nito [8]. At para sa mga taong sumasailalim sa knee ligament reconstruction, ang pagdaragdag ng PRP ay hindi pa naipapakitang malinaw na nagpapahusay sa mga resulta [9].

May ilang tapat na limitasyon ang pananaliksik na ito. Maraming pag-aaral ang maliit o maikli, at ang ilan ay hindi nailarawan nang sapat ang kanilang PRP preparation upang maikumpara ang mga ito nang patas [10]. Natuklasan din ng mga reviewer na ang mga buod ng pananaliksik na ito ay kung minsan ay masyadong positibo [11]. Kailangan pa ng mas mahahabang pag-aaral upang malaman kung gaano katagal ang bisa ng PRP sa paglipas ng mga taon [12].

Ang ibig sabihin nito sa praktika ay maaaring makatulong sa iyo ang PRP, ngunit hindi ito sigurado para sa bawat kondisyon. Titimbangin ng iyong doktor ang ebidensya para sa iyong partikular na problema at kakausapin ka kung sulit ba itong subukan.

Ano ang mga panganib?

Ang mga pinakakaraniwang epekto ay ang mga inaasahan mo mula sa anumang injection. Ang bahaging tinurukan ng karayom ay maaaring sumakit, maging sensitibo, o mamaga sa loob ng ilang araw. Dahil ang PRP ay gawa mula sa iyong sariling dugo, tumatanggap ang iyong katawan ng isang bagay na kinikilala na nito.

Ang pananaliksik sa arthritis sa tuhod ay sumubaybay sa mga tao sa loob ng isang buong taon pagkatapos ng mga injection at nakitang walang pagkakaiba sa mga adverse event o pagkabigo ng gamutan sa pagitan ng dalawang pangunahing uri ng PRP [1]. Ang mga parehong pag-aaral na sumukat sa sakit at function ng tuhod ay nagsuri rin para sa mga problema sa kaligtasan sa loob ng 12-buwang panahong iyon at nakitang ligtas ang gamutan [2].

Mayroong ilang mga pagkukulang sa mga bagay na alam na. Ang mga review ng pananaliksik sa arthritis sa tuhod ay nakitang ang mga buod ng pag-aaral ay kung minsan ay masyadong positibo, na maaaring magmukhang mas maliit ang mga panganib kaysa sa katotohanan [3]. Ang ilang mga trial ay binatikos din dahil sa hindi sapat na paglalarawan sa kanilang paghahanda ng PRP, at sa pagsunod sa mga pasyente sa loob ng masyadong maikling panahon upang mapansin ang mga problemang mas mabagal lumabas [4].

Para sa ilang mga gamit, ang ebidensya sa kaligtasan ay mas kakaunti kaysa sa iba. Ang pagdaragdag ng PRP habang isinasagawa ang knee ligament reconstruction ay hindi napatunayang malinaw na nagpapabuti ng mga resulta, at ang kalidad ng pananaliksik ay hindi sapat upang sabihin kung nakakatulong ba ito [5]. Ang paggamit ng PRP upang tulungan ang paggaling ng mga bali na buto ay pinag-aaralan pa rin, at kailangan ng mas malalaking pag-aaral bago ito maging routine [6].

Kung isinasaalang-alang mo ang higit sa isang injection, normal na bahagi ito ng gamutan para sa arthritis sa tuhod, kung saan inirerekomenda ang hindi bababa sa dalawang injection [7]. Tatalakayin ng iyong doktor kung ilang injection ang nararapat para sa iyo, at kung ano ang dapat bantayan pagkatapos nito.

Tama ba ito para sa iyo?

Ang PRP ay madalas na angkop para sa mga taong may maagang wear-and-tear arthritis sa tuhod, kung saan pinipili ang isang uri ng PRP dahil sa epekto nito sa pagpapakalma ng pamamaga [1]. Ginagamit din ito para sa tennis elbow, kung saan maaari nitong bawasan ang sakit at pagbutihin ang paggana ng braso sa mga unang buwan pagkatapos ng gamutan [2]. Ang mga injection na gawa mula sa processed fat tissue ay isang katulad na opsyon para sa knee arthritis, at ang parehong pamamaraan ay nakatulong sa mga tao sa loob ng 12-buwang panahon [3].

Maaaring hindi ito angkop para sa lahat. Para sa sakit sa labas ng balakang, ang kasalukuyang pananaliksik ay hindi sumusuporta sa regular na paggamit nito [4]. Ang pagdaragdag ng PRP habang isinasagawa ang knee ligament reconstruction ay hindi napatunayang malinaw na nagpapabuti ng mga resulta [5]. Ang paggamit nito upang tulungan ang paghilom ng mga bali na buto ay pinag-aaralan pa rin, at kailangan ng mas malalaking pag-aaral bago ito maging regular na pamamaraan [6].

Mahalaga rin ang uri ng PRP. Para sa knee arthritis, pinaka-epektibo ang gamutan kapag ang mix ay tugma sa yugto ng sakit [1]. Ang mga pag-aaral na naghahambing sa dalawang pangunahing uri ng PRP ay hindi nakakita ng malinaw na pagkakaiba sa nararamdaman ng mga tao o sa mga side effect [7]. Ipapaliwanag ng iyong doktor kung aling mix ang nararapat para sa iyo.

Dapat itong maging isang shared decision. Susuriin ng iyong doktor ang iyong partikular na problema, ang yugto nito, at kung ano ang nais mong makamit. Magkasama ninyong titimbangin ang PRP laban sa iba pang mga opsyon, gaya ng cortisone o lubricant injection, at pagdedesisyunan kung sulit itong subukan. Ang seksyon ng mga panganib (risks) sa itaas ay sumasaklaw sa mga dapat bantayan pagkatapos.

Ang pinaka-punto

Ang PRP ay nararapat isaalang-alang para sa ilang mga problema at hindi para sa iba. Para sa wear-and-tear arthritis sa tuhod, maaari nitong pagaanin ang sakit at tulungan ang joint na gumana nang mas mabuti, at ang pagdaragdag ng natural joint lubricant ay maaaring magbigay ng higit na ginhawa kaysa sa PRP lamang [1]. Para sa tennis elbow, maaaring mas mahusay ito kaysa sa cortisone sa pangmatagalan, bagaman hindi lahat ng pag-aaral ay sumasang-ayon [2] [3]. Para sa sakit sa labas ng balakang o habang may operasyon sa ligament ng tuhod, hindi sinusuportahan ng pananaliksik ang routine na paggamit nito [4] [5]. Ang pinakamahalagang babala: marami sa mga pananaliksik na ito ay maliit, maikli, o may pagkiling sa positibong resulta, kaya pumasok na may inaasahang posibleng benepisyo sa halip na isang siguradong bagay [6] [7].

Mga Sanggunian

[1] Efficacy of multiple autologous apheresis platelet-rich plasma injections for treating knee osteoarthritis and its influencing factors: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05756-6

[2] Poster 58: Decreased Pain After Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis Patients in the Early Follow-up Period. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/2325967125s00169

[3] Platelet-rich plasma treatment for large joint osteoarthritis: retrospective study highlighting a possible treatment protocol with long-lasting stimulation of the joint with an adequate dose of platelets. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08663-3

[4] The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma preparation protocols in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-06026-1

[5] Platelet Concentration Factor Explains Variability in Outcomes of Platelet-rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: High Dose Critical for Positive Response. Journal of ISAKOS. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100442

[6] Time-dependent growth factor kinetics, platelet concentration, and clinical response following platelet-rich plasma versus saline in chronic tenosynovitis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-09339-8

[7] A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Single Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Versus Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251386862

[8] Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5: Is Platelet-rich Plasma Effective in Treating Achilles Tendinopathy? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003478

[9] Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.24.00763

[10] Leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-026-06689-4

[11] RETRACTED ARTICLE: A meta-analysis and systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (PRP + HA) versus PRP monotherapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05429-w

[12] Microfragmented Adipose Tissue as an Alternative to Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-articular Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/03635465251337759

[13] Platelet-Rich Plasma Does Not Improve Pain or Function in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis as Compared With Placebo: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/03635465251383039

[14] Minimally invasive needle tenotomy vs. platelet rich plasma injection in the treatment of chronic elbow epicondylitis. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.183

[15] Platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection for tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08566-3

[16] The impact of platelet-rich plasma augmentation on postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-026-06714-6

[17] Liham Tungkol sa “Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections are Inferior to Corticosteroid Injections for Short-Term Pain Relief: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial”. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.05.007

[18] Statistically Significant Results Favored in Abstracts of Platelet Rich Plasma Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Spin Analysis. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70027

[19] Overview of Available Treatments and Their Limitations for Hypertrophic Facet Joints—A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00140

[20] Leukocytes Do Not Influence the Safety and Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465241283500

[21] PS9 ang platelet-rich plasma injection ba ay isang epektibong pagpipilian sa mga kaso ng delayed union o non-union?. Injury. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70158-x

Evidence & references

This is the clinical evidence summary written for health professionals. It is technical, and it lists the research this page was built from. You do not need to read it to understand your treatment or to make a decision about it.

Overview

At least two PRP injections are recommended for treating knee osteoarthritis [1].
The effects of multiple autologous apheresis PRP injections for knee osteoarthritis last for at least 24 weeks [1].
Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of PRP for hypertrophic facet joints [2].
Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PRP for hypertrophic facet joints [2].
Conclusions regarding the clinical utility of PRP from a specific prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial should be interpreted with caution due to major methodological concerns [3].
Major methodological concerns in the cited RCT include a lack of PRP characterization [3].
Major methodological concerns in the cited RCT include short-term follow-up [3].
Future studies on PRP clinical utility should prioritize long-term outcomes to guide clinical decision-making [3].
Leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) is an effective treatment option for knee osteoarthritis based on current evidence [4].
Leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) is an effective treatment option for knee osteoarthritis based on current evidence [4].
L-PRP and LP-PRP have comparable efficacy for knee osteoarthritis based on current evidence [4].
Interventions employing PRP are considered in the context of degenerative osteoarthritis as a reversible chronic disease [5].
Findings from a randomized controlled trial in chronic tenosynovitis refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo [6].
Findings from a randomized controlled trial in chronic tenosynovitis support the efficacy of PRP over placebo [6].
The authors of a 2023 response argued that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO [7].
Rigorous basic, translational, and clinical research remains fundamental to realize the promise of PRP treatment for musculoskeletal disease [8].
The authors of a retrospective study recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners with large joint osteoarthritis [9].
The authors of a 2025 RCT do not support the routine use of PRP for the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome [12].
Studies evaluating the outcomes and procedures of PRP use in lateral epicondylitis demonstrate poor adherence to MIBO guidelines [13].
Findings from a 2026 meta-analysis do not support PRP as a recommended treatment for lateral epicondylitis [16].

How It Works

At least two PRP injections are recommended for treating knee osteoarthritis, with effects lasting for at least 24 weeks [1].
Leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy for knee osteoarthritis based on current evidence [4].
PRP demonstrates efficacy over placebo in the treatment of chronic tenosynovitis [6].
Corticosteroids result in greater short-term improvement than PRP for lateral elbow tendinopathy, while PRP demonstrates superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months [10].
PRP is no more effective than placebo for treating Achilles tendinopathy [11].
Routine use of PRP is not supported for the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome [12].
A direct, linear relationship exists between the concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis [14].
High-dose PRP shows significant efficacy over alternative treatment strategies for lateral epicondylitis [14].
Optimizing osteoarthritis treatment involves tailoring PRP protocols to disease stage, with low platelet, high leukocyte PRP recommended for early OA due to its anti-inflammatory effects [20].
High platelet, low leukocyte PRP is preferred for advanced osteoarthritis to promote tissue repair and regeneration [20].
Interventions employing PRP, MSCs, and exosomes are considered in the context of degenerative osteoarthritis as a reversible chronic disease [5].
An innovative biological approach to the treatment of muscle injuries is the application of Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) in intramuscular infiltrations [18].
The goal of characterizing PRP is to discern key molecular mediators between leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) derived from the same patient with equivalent platelet concentrations [19].

What the Evidence Shows

Knee Osteoarthritis

Both leukocyte-rich (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options for knee osteoarthritis with comparable efficacy based on current evidence [4].
Leukocytes did not affect the safety and efficacy of intra-articular PRP injections for the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis [22].
Intra-articular PRP injection is an effective treatment for improving overall function in patients with primary osteoarthritis, particularly in younger individuals [27].
Spin bias is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intra-articular PRP to treat knee osteoarthritis, with identified spin tending to favor the use of PRP [28].
Further studies will be needed to evaluate PRP’s long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness for practical patient use in the future [2].

Tendinopathy

PRP is no more effective than placebo for treating Achilles tendinopathy and should not be used for this indication until new, large, high-quality RCTs upend current knowledge [11].
PRP does not improve pain or function in patients with lateral epicondylitis as compared with placebo [16].
A direct, linear relationship was observed between the concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis, with high-dose PRP showing significant efficacy over alternative treatment strategies [14].
Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement, while PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months for the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy [10].
PRP injections are a safe and effective conservative treatment method for reducing pain symptoms and increasing functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis [26].
PRP can effectively improve pain and functional impairment in patients with tendinopathy, and its midterm efficacy is superior to that of corticosteroids [24].
These findings refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo and support its efficacy over placebo in chronic tenosynovitis [6].

Other Indications

PRP is not supported for the routine use in the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome [12].
The application of PRP following core decompression results in significant pain relief, improved short-term functional outcomes, and enhanced quality of life compared to core decompression alone in early osteonecrosis of the femoral head [23].
Current evidence supports the selective use of PRP in sports settings for acute muscle injuries, though standardization in protocols and outcomes is needed [15].
The authors recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners for large joint osteoarthritis [9].

Methodology and Reporting

Studies evaluating the outcomes and procedures of the use of PRP in the setting of lateral epicondylitis have poor adherence to MIBO guidelines [13].
The authors' conclusions regarding the clinical utility of PRP should be interpreted with caution due to major methodological concerns, including lack of PRP characterization and short-term follow-up [3].

Practical Considerations

Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of PRP for practical patient use [2].
Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PRP for practical patient use [2].
Conclusions regarding the clinical utility of PRP should be interpreted with caution due to major methodological concerns, including lack of PRP characterization and short-term follow-up [3].
Future studies should prioritize long-term outcomes to guide clinical decision-making more effectively [3].
Leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options for knee osteoarthritis [4].
The authors of a specific study argue that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO [7].
The authors of a retrospective study recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners [9].
Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement than a single PRP injection for lateral elbow tendinopathy [10].
PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes than corticosteroids at 6 and 12 months for lateral elbow tendinopathy [10].
PRP should not be used for Achilles tendinopathy until new, large, high-quality RCTs upend current knowledge [11].
Current evidence supports the selective use of PRP in sports settings for acute muscle injuries [15].
Standardization in protocols and outcomes is needed for the use of PRP in sports settings [15].
The economic value of LP-PRP is conditional rather than uniform [21].
The economic value of LP-PRP depends on revision probability and preparation cost [21].

Key Evidence

[L3] At least two PRP injections are recommended, with effects lasting for at least 24 weeks. [1] (10.1186/s13018-025-05756-6)
[L4] Further studies will be needed to evaluate PRP’s long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness for practical patient use in the future. [2] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00140)
[L5] The authors' conclusions regarding the clinical utility of PRP should be interpreted with caution due to major methodological concerns, including lack of PRP characterization and short-term follow-up; future studies should prioritize long-term outcomes to guide clinical decision-making more effectively. [3] (10.1016/j.arth.2025.05.007)
[L1] Both L-PRP and LP-PRP are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy based on current evidence. [4] (10.1186/s13018-026-06689-4)
[L5] Interventions employing PRP, MSCs and exosomes are considered in this article. [5] (10.1016/j.reth.2020.07.007)
[L1] These findings refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo and support its efficacy over placebo. [6] (10.1186/s12891-025-09339-8)
[Paper] The authors argue that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO. [7] (10.1177/03635465231203202)
[Paper] Rigorous basic, translational, and clinical research remains fundamental to realize the promise of PRP treatment for musculoskeletal disease. [8] (10.1177/03635465251395284)
[L4] The authors recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners. [9] (10.1186/s12891-025-08663-3)
[L1] Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement, while PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months. [10] (10.1177/23259671251386862)
[L1] PRP is no more effective than placebo for treating Achilles tendinopathy and should not be used for this indication until new, large, high-quality RCTs upend current knowledge. [11] (10.1097/corr.0000000000003478)
[L1] As a result, we do not support the routine use of PRP for the treatment of this condition. [12] (10.2106/jbjs.24.00763)
[L2] This review demonstrated that studies evaluating the outcomes and procedures of the use of PRP in the setting of LE have poor adherence to MIBO guidelines. [13] (10.5397/cise.2024.01060)
[L1] A direct, linear relationship was observed between the concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after PRP injection, with high-dose PRP showing significant efficacy over alternative treatment strategies. [14] (10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100442)
[L2] Current evidence supports the selective use of PRP in sports settings, though standardization in protocols and outcomes is needed. [15] (10.1177/23259671251399907)
[L1] These findings do not support PRP as a recommended treatment for this condition. [16] (10.1177/03635465251383039)
[L5] An innovative biological approach to the treatment of muscle injuries is the application of Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) in intramuscular infiltrations. [18] (10.1016/s0020-1383(14)70004-x)
[L5] The goal of the study was to discern key molecular mediators between leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) derived from the same patient with equivalent platelet concentrations. [19] (10.1177/03635465231206930)
[L1] Optimizing OA treatment involves tailoring PRP protocols to disease stage, with low platelet, high leukocyte PRP recommended for early OA due to its anti-inflammatory effects and high platelet, low leukocyte PRP preferred for advanced OA to promote tissue repair and regeneration. [20] (10.1186/s13018-025-06026-1)
[L1] The economic value of LP-PRP is conditional rather than uniform and depends on revision probability and preparation cost. [21] (10.1016/j.jse.2026.02.018)
[L1] This double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrated that leukocytes did not affect the safety and efficacy of intra-articular PRP injections for the treatment of patients with knee OA. [22] (10.1177/03635465241283500)
[L3] The application of PRP following CD results in significant pain relief, improved short-term functional outcomes, and enhanced quality of life compared to CD alone. [23] (10.1186/s12891-024-08243-x)
[L1] PRP can effectively improve pain and functional impairment in patients with tendinopathy, and its midterm efficacy is superior to that of corticosteroids. [24] (10.1186/s12891-025-08566-3)
[L4] PRP injections are a safe and effective conservative treatment method for reducing pain symptoms and increasing functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis. [26] (10.1177/2325967125s00169)
[L1] Intra-articular PRP injection is an effective treatment for improving overall function in patients with primary OA, particularly in younger individuals. [27] (10.1186/s12891-026-09486-6)
[L1] Spin bias is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intra-articular PRP to treat knee osteoarthritis, with identified spin tending to favor the use of PRP. [28] (10.1002/arj.70027)

References

[2] Overview of Available Treatments and Their Limitations for Hypertrophic Facet Joints—A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00140

[3] Letter Regarding “Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections are Inferior to Corticosteroid Injections for Short-Term Pain Relief: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial”. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.05.007

[4] Leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-026-06689-4

[5] Degenerative osteoarthritis a reversible chronic disease. Regenerative Therapy. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.reth.2020.07.007

[7] Improving Injectable Orthobiologics Reporting Guidelines Adherence: Response. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231203202

[8] Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Disease in 2025 and Beyond. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/03635465251395284

[9] Platelet-rich plasma treatment for large joint osteoarthritis: retrospective study highlighting a possible treatment protocol with long-lasting stimulation of the joint with an adequate dose of platelets. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08663-3

[10] A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Single Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Versus Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251386862

[11] Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5: Is Platelet-rich Plasma Effective in Treating Achilles Tendinopathy? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003478

[12] Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.24.00763

[13] Adherence rates to the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopedics guidelines for clinical studies on platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review. Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow. 2026. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2024.01060

[14] Platelet Concentration Factor Explains Variability in Outcomes of Platelet-rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: High Dose Critical for Positive Response. Journal of ISAKOS. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100442

[15] Platelet-Rich Plasma in Acute Muscle Injuries: An Umbrella Review and Meta-analysis of Return to Sport and Reinjury Outcomes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251399907

[16] Platelet-Rich Plasma Does Not Improve Pain or Function in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis as Compared With Placebo: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/03635465251383039

[18] Muscle repair: platelet-rich plasma derivates as a bridge from spontaneity to intervention. Injury. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(14)70004-x

[19] The Accurate Characterization of Platelet-Rich Plasma Enables Its Classification and Comparison: Response. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231206930

[20] The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma preparation protocols in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-06026-1

[21] Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma reduces retear risk after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis with mechanistic and economic evaluation. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2026.02.018

[22] Leukocytes Do Not Influence the Safety and Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465241283500

[23] Efficacy of small-diameter core decompression with platelet-rich plasma in early osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-08243-x

[24] Platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection for tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08566-3

[26] Poster 58: Decreased Pain After Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis Patients in the Early Follow-up Period. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/2325967125s00169

[27] Investigating the therapeutic impact of platelet-rich plasma on knee, hip, and traumatic osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-026-09486-6

[28] Statistically Significant Results Favored in Abstracts of Platelet Rich Plasma Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Spin Analysis. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70027