Home
中文
English தமிழ் Português 中文 Tiếng Việt Filipino ਪੰਜਾਬੀ 自动翻译 — 英文版本为权威版本。

富血小板血浆（PRP）及注射疗法 资料

本页面由机器翻译，尚未经临床医生审核。英文版本为权威版本。

您的感受

您可能会感到膝盖、肘部或肩部疼痛。这种不适通常在您活动后加重。如果您侧卧在患侧睡觉，还可能在夜间痛醒。一些简单的日常活动，如伸手到背后扣内衣或把衬衫塞进裤子里，可能会变得困难。

对于膝关节退行性关节炎，您可能会感到僵硬或酸痛，从而限制您的活动范围。您的外科医生可能会建议至少进行两次富血小板血浆（PRP）注射以帮助缓解症状。这些注射使用的是您自身的血液血浆，旨在减轻炎症。这些注射带来的缓解效果通常至少持续24周。

如果您患有网球肘（肱骨外上髁炎），疼痛通常位于肘部外侧。您在抓握物体时可能会感到无力。您获得的症状缓解程度通常取决于所使用的PRP浓度。与其他治疗方法相比，较高剂量的PRP往往能提供更显著的缓解效果。

由肩袖问题引起的肩部疼痛会使抬臂变得疼痛。如果您曾接受过手术，您的外科医生可能会使用一种称为白细胞减少型PRP（leukocyte-poor PRP）的特定类型PRP。这种类型的PRP有助于降低肌腱修复后再次撕裂的风险。

对于跟腱疼痛或大转子疼痛综合征（髋部疼痛），目前的证据不支持使用PRP。对于这些病症，PRP的效果并不优于安慰剂。在新的高质量研究提供更明确的答案之前，您应避免接受这些治疗。

您的外科医生将根据您的具体损伤情况决定PRP是否适合您。PRP通常被考虑用于患有大关节关节炎或急性肌肉损伤的运动员。然而，结果因人而异。有些人会发现显著的缓解，而另一些人可能仍然不满意。在开始治疗之前，务必与您的医疗团队讨论潜在的益处和局限性。

实际发生了什么

您的身体利用血小板来修复损伤。这些细胞聚集在损伤部位并释放有助于组织修复的蛋白质。富血小板血浆（PRP）疗法采集您自身的血液，通过离心浓缩这些具有修复作用的细胞，并将其注射回问题区域。这为您的身体提供了更强的信号以修复损伤。

在膝关节骨关节炎中，骨端的光滑涂层磨损。这是磨损性关节炎。关节失去了其缓冲作用。您的外科医生可能会建议对此病症进行至少两次 PRP 注射。目标是减轻疼痛并改善功能。对于许多患者，这些效果可持续至少 24 周。然而，科学证据仍在不断发展。一些研究存在方法学问题，因此我们谨慎解读结果。我们需要更多的长期数据来确认该疗法对所有人的疗效。

对于肌腱问题，如肱骨外上髁炎（网球肘），绳索状的肌腱纤维受损。研究表明，所使用的 PRP 浓度与症状缓解程度之间存在直接联系。较高剂量通常比低剂量提供更好的结果。对于这种特定病症，该疗法可能比其他策略更有效。它也有助于反驳 PRP 仅对慢性腱鞘炎具有安慰剂效应的观点。

在肩部损伤中，肩袖肌腱像绳索一样将手臂固定在原位。手术后，这些肌腱可能会再次撕裂。在修复过程中使用白细胞减少型 PRP 可以降低再次撕裂的风险。白细胞是白细胞。去除部分白细胞可能创造更好的愈合环境。

对于其他病症，证据不一或为阴性。不推荐对跟腱病使用 PRP。对此问题，其疗效不优于安慰剂。常规用于大转子疼痛综合征也缺乏支持。在运动医学领域，PRP 可能有助于急性肌肉损伤，但方案需要标准化。对于运动员的大关节骨关节炎，应系统性地提供该疗法。

最终，您的外科医生将根据您的具体损伤和最新证据决定 PRP 是否适合您。

预期效果

您的预后在很大程度上取决于您所治疗的具体疾病。对于膝关节退行性关节炎，您的外科医生可能会建议至少进行两次富血小板血浆（PRP）注射。这些治疗有助于至少维持24周的症状缓解。这意味着在考虑进一步治疗之前，您可能会获得约六个月的缓解期。

如果您是一名患有大关节关节炎的运动员，PRP治疗可能是您管理计划中有用的一部分。它可以帮助您在比赛季节保持活跃。然而，对于急性肌肉损伤，证据尚不明确。虽然PRP在某些运动场景下可能有所帮助，但治疗方案尚未标准化。您应讨论这是否适合您的具体损伤类型。

对于其他常见问题，结果各不相同。在慢性腱鞘炎（腱鞘炎症）的情况下，PRP已被证明比安慰剂更有效。然而，对于肱骨外上髁炎（网球肘），证据存在矛盾。一些研究表明，较高剂量能提供更好的症状缓解，而另一些研究则不支持使用PRP。同样，目前的数据不支持常规使用PRP治疗大转子疼痛综合征（髋部疼痛）。

对跟腱病的治疗效果应保持谨慎的期望。目前的证据显示，PRP对此病的效果并不优于安慰剂。在提供不同结论的新的高质量研究出现之前，通常不建议使用PRP。如果您正在进行肩袖修复手术，您的外科医生可能会使用白细胞贫乏型PRP来帮助降低肌腱再次撕裂的风险。

总体而言，PRP并非保证治愈的方法。它是一种对某些人和某些疾病有效的治疗选择，但并非对所有情况都有效。您的外科医生将帮助您判断在您具体情况下，潜在益处是否超过成本和精力投入。

Reviewed by Kieran Hirpara · 13 June 2026.

Want the clinical detail? Read the clinician version.

Talk to your treating clinician for advice specific to you.

For an appointment with the CQ Hand + Upper Limb team, ask your GP about a referral or visit www.cqupperlimb.com.

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, with effects lasting for at least 24 weeks [1].
  • 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 [2].
  • Future studies should prioritize long-term outcomes to guide clinical decision-making more effectively [2].
  • Both leukocyte-rich (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) platelet-rich plasma are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy based on current evidence [3].
  • Findings refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo and support its efficacy over placebo in chronic tenosynovitis [4].
  • PRP therapy should be systematically offered for competition sports practitioners [5].
  • The authors argue that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO [6].
  • Findings do not support PRP as a recommended treatment for lateral epicondylitis [7].
  • 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 [8].
  • Rigorous basic, translational, and clinical research remains fundamental to realize the promise of PRP treatment for musculoskeletal disease [9].
  • Current evidence supports the selective use of PRP in sports settings, though standardization in protocols and outcomes is needed [11].
  • Routine use of PRP for the treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome is not supported [13].
  • Studies evaluating the outcomes and procedures of the use of PRP in the setting of lateral epicondylitis have poor adherence to MIBO guidelines [14].

How It Works

  • The clinical utility of PRP should be interpreted with caution due to major methodological concerns in some studies, including lack of PRP characterization and short-term follow-up [2].
  • Both leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy based on current evidence [3].
  • PRP therapy is recommended for competition sports practitioners [5].
  • Authors argue that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO [6].
  • 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 [10].
  • Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement, while PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months for lateral elbow tendinopathy [12].
  • The application of PRP following small-diameter 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 [15].
  • The goal of characterization studies 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 [16].
  • 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 and high platelet, low leukocyte PRP preferred for advanced OA to promote tissue repair and regeneration [17].

What the Evidence Shows

Efficacy by Condition

  • At least two PRP injections are recommended for knee osteoarthritis, with effects lasting for at least 24 weeks [1].
  • Intra-articular PRP injection is an effective treatment for improving overall function in patients with primary osteoarthritis, particularly in younger individuals [23].
  • PRP injections are a safe and effective conservative treatment method for reducing pain symptoms and increasing functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis [22].
  • Current evidence supports the selective use of PRP in sports settings for acute muscle injuries, though standardization in protocols and outcomes is needed [11].
  • PRP can effectively improve pain and functional impairment in patients with tendinopathy, and its midterm efficacy is superior to that of corticosteroids [20].
  • Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement than PRP, while PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months for lateral elbow tendinopathy [12].
  • Current evidence is of insufficient quality to determine if anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) augmented with PRP provides a clinically meaningful improvement in postoperative outcomes over ACLR without PRP [26].

Product Composition and Preparation

  • Both leukocyte-rich (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy for knee osteoarthritis based on current evidence [3].
  • Leukocytes did not affect the safety and efficacy of intra-articular PRP injections for the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial [19].
  • 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 [10].
  • The findings refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo and support its efficacy over placebo for chronic tenosynovitis [4].

Combination Therapies

  • For patients with knee osteoarthritis, PRP combined with hyaluronic acid (PRP + HA) therapy is safe and yields better outcomes in pain relief and functional improvement compared to PRP monotherapy [21].
  • The combination of PRP with non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid in mono-injection was found to be non-inferior to crosslinked hyaluronic acid regarding the percentage of responders over 6 months for knee osteoarthritis [25].

Reporting Quality and Methodological Concerns

  • 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 [2].
  • 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 [24].
  • Studies evaluating the outcomes and procedures of the use of PRP in the setting of lateral epicondylitis have poor adherence to Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopedics (MIBO) guidelines [14].

Specific Recommendations

  • The authors recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners [5].

Practical Considerations

  • Both leukocyte-rich (L-PRP) and leukocyte-poor (LP-PRP) are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy based on current evidence [3].
  • A direct, linear relationship was observed between the concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after PRP injection [10].
  • High-dose PRP shows significant efficacy over alternative treatment strategies [10].
  • Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement compared to PRP for lateral elbow tendinopathy [12].
  • PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months compared to corticosteroids for lateral elbow tendinopathy [12].
  • Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma reduces retear risk after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [18].
  • The economic value of LP-PRP is conditional rather than uniform and depends on revision probability and preparation cost [18].

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)
  • [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. [2] (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. [3] (10.1186/s13018-026-06689-4)
  • [L1] These findings refute claims of PRP equivalence to placebo and support its efficacy over placebo. [4] (10.1186/s12891-025-09339-8)
  • [L4] The authors recommend systematically offering PRP therapy for competition sports practitioners. [5] (10.1186/s12891-025-08663-3)
  • [Paper] The authors argue that they fulfilled the reporting requirements for the injected PRP product as defined by MIBO. [6] (10.1177/03635465231203202)
  • [L1] These findings do not support PRP as a recommended treatment for this condition. [7] (10.1177/03635465251383039)
  • [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. [8] (10.1097/corr.0000000000003478)
  • [Paper] Rigorous basic, translational, and clinical research remains fundamental to realize the promise of PRP treatment for musculoskeletal disease. [9] (10.1177/03635465251395284)
  • [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. [10] (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. [11] (10.1177/23259671251399907)
  • [L1] Corticosteroids resulted in greater short-term improvement, while PRP demonstrated superior longer-term outcomes at 6 and 12 months. [12] (10.1177/23259671251386862)
  • [L1] As a result, we do not support the routine use of PRP for the treatment of this condition. [13] (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. [14] (10.5397/cise.2024.01060)
  • [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. [15] (10.1186/s12891-024-08243-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. [16] (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. [17] (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. [18] (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. [19] (10.1177/03635465241283500)
  • [L1] PRP can effectively improve pain and functional impairment in patients with tendinopathy, and its midterm efficacy is superior to that of corticosteroids. [20] (10.1186/s12891-025-08566-3)
  • [L1] This meta-analysis reveals that, for patients with KOA, PRP + HA therapy is safe and yields better outcomes in pain relief and functional improvement compared to PRP monotherapy. [21] (10.1186/s13018-024-05429-w)
  • [L4] PRP injections are a safe and effective conservative treatment method for reducing pain symptoms and increasing functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis. [22] (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. [23] (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. [24] (10.1002/arj.70027)
  • [L1] The combination of PRP with non-crosslinked HA in mono-injection was found to be non-inferior to crosslinked HA, with regards to the percentage of responders over 6 months (WOMAC pain). [25] (10.1186/s12891-026-09625-z)
  • [L1] Current evidence is of insufficient quality to determine if ACLR augmented with PRP application provides a clinically meaningful improvement in postoperative outcomes over ACLR without PRP. [26] (10.1186/s13018-026-06714-6)

References

[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] 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

[3] 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

[4] 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

[5] 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

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

[7] 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

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

[10] 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

[11] 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

[12] 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

[13] 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

[14] 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

[15] 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

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

[17] 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

[18] 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

[19] 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

[20] 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

[21] 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

[22] 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

[23] 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

[24] 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

[25] Efficacy and safety of a combination of platelet-rich plasma with non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid versus a crosslinked hyaluronic acid, in single-injection for knee osteoarthritis. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-026-09625-z

[26] 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

专业协会这些代表什么？→