Abstract
Purpose
-
Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management are endorsed by several scientific societies, while the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is more controversial. Aim of the study was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness of CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients with knee OA.
Methods
-
The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of CS injections and HA or PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA were included. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to interpret the clinical relevance of the improvements at different follow-ups up to 12 months. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and the GRADE guidelines.
Results
-
Thirty-five RCTs were included (3348 patients). The meta-analysis comparing CS and HA revealed no difference in terms of WOMAC improvement, while HA showed superior VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up (P = 0.011), without reaching the MCID. PRP offered a superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short- (P = 0.002), mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID), and long-term (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) follow-ups. PRP offered a superior VAS improvement at mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) and long-term (P = 0.023) follow-ups.
Conclusion
-
CS injections for knee OA offer similar results to HA and PRP only at short term, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favour of PRP.
Introduction
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common orthopedic diseases and represents a major cause of knee pain and disability in older adults (1, 2). The prevalence of this degenerative condition is currently rising, with a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide (3, 4, 5, 6). Although commonly referred to as a ‘wear and tear’ disease, knee OA may be initiated and progressed by various mechanisms, involving complex interactions between genetic, metabolic, biochemical, and biomechanical factors, all favoring the disease progression (7, 8). Among these, inflammation plays a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of OA, with synovial membrane alterations and the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the whole joint environment (1). These elements induce chondrocytes to produce degradative enzymes of the extracellular matrix, thus affecting the articular surface (9). In this scenario, intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections have been proposed and used for over 60 years in knee OA management, relying on their anti-inflammatory properties (10, 11, 12, 13, 14).
Clinical benefits supported the use of CS injections in clinical practice, where this approach showed to provide significant pain relief and joint function improvement in knee OA patients (14, 15, 16). Scientific societies and healthcare organizations also endorsed the use of CS injections as part of a comprehensive treatment plan for knee OA. The Osteoarthritis Research Society International Guidelines (OARSI) (17), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (18), the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) (19), and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) (20) include intra-articular CS injections among the options to manage patients affected by knee OA. On the other side, the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for knee OA patients is more controversial, although the evidence supporting these products significantly increased in last years (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses supported the clinical benefits provided by HA and PRP injections, but the most effective approach among the intra-articular treatment options for knee OA remains debated (26, 27). In this scenario, an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CS injections with HA and PRP approaches would provide scientific evidence to clarify the clinical relevance of the benefits of these procedures and enable healthcare providers to make informed decisions regarding the most appropriate choice for the intra-articular injection therapy of knee OA.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness in terms of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of intra-articular CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients affected by knee OA.
Materials and methods
Literature search and article selection
A systematic review of the literature was performed on the comparison of intra-articular CS injections versus HA or PRP for the treatment of knee OA. The study was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023466155). A literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on July 20, 2023, with no time limitation and without any filters, using the following string: (steroid* OR corticosteroid* OR glucocorticoid* OR cortisone OR hydrocortisone OR prednisolone OR prednisone OR methylprednisolone OR triamcinolone OR dexamethasone OR betamethasone OR fludrocortisone OR deoxycorticosterone) AND (inject* OR intra-articular* OR infiltrat*) AND (osteoarthritis OR OA) AND (knee).
According to the PRISMA guidelines (28), the article selection and data extraction processes were conducted separately by two authors (A Be and A S). After the removal of duplicates, the initial title and abstract screenings were made using the following inclusion criteria: RCTs, written in English language and with no time limitation, on the comparison of intra-articular injections of CS versus HA or CS versus PRP for the treatment of knee OA. Exclusion criteria were non-randomized studies, articles written in other languages, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, expert opinions, preclinical studies, and studies not reporting clinical outcomes. In the second step, the full texts of the selected articles were screened, with further exclusions according to the previously described criteria. The reference lists from the previously published relevant reviews were also screened. The screening process is detailed in Fig. 1. Two investigators independently reviewed each article (A Be and A S), and any discrepancies between them were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author (A Bo).
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 9; 10.1530/EOR-23-0198
Data extraction and outcome measurement
Relevant data were independently extracted from the included studies by two authors (A Be and A S). The data included authors, year of publication, number of patients, sex, age, follow-up time, CS type, HA and PRP details, dose and number of injections, Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) OA grade, and clinical outcomes. These data were collected in a database to be analyzed to the purpose of the present study.
The scores to evaluate the clinical benefit of CS, HA, and PRP injections were documented and those with at least three articles contributing to each time point evaluation were considered for the meta-analysis. Outcome analysis was performed at four different follow-ups, resulting in a very short- (≤ 6 weeks), short- (> 6 weeks and ≤ 3 months), mid- (> 3 months and ≤ 6 months), and long-term (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) follow-up analyses. For each outcome, the pooled effect sizes were analyzed in light of their MCID, defined as the smallest difference perceived as important by the average patient (29).
Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence
The risk of bias and quality of evidence of each article was assessed independently by two authors (A Be and A S), with disagreements resolved by consensus with a third author (A Bo). For the risk of bias, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2) was used (30). RoB 2 is structured into a fixed set of domains of bias, focusing on different aspects of trial design, conduct, and reporting. Within each domain, a series of questions (‘signaling questions’) aims to elicit information about features of the trial that are relevant to the risk of bias. A proposed judgement on the risk of bias for each domain is generated by an algorithm, based on answers to the signaling questions. Judgement can be ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk of bias or can express ‘Some concerns’. For each plotted outcome of the comparative meta-analysis, the quality of evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. In the GRADE system, the baseline rating of RCTs is considered ‘high’. Five criteria are used to downgrade one or two steps in case of ‘serious’ or ‘very serious concerns’: risk of bias in individual studies, inconsistency of results between studies, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and publication bias. The overall quality of evidence can be graded as ‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’, or ‘very low’.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis and the Forest plotting were carried out according to Neyeloff et al. using the Meta XL tool for Microsoft Excel by an independent professional statistician (31). The analysis was carried out using random effects (DerSimonian & Laird (32)) for the weighted mean differences (MDs) of continuous variables. A statistical test for heterogeneity was first conducted with the Cochran Q statistic and I2 metric. The presence of significant heterogeneity was considered with I2 ≥ 25%. When no heterogeneity was found with I2 < 25%, a fixed effect model was used to estimate the expected values and 95% confidence intervals, otherwise a random-effect model was applied and an I2 metric was evaluated for the random effect to check the correction of heterogeneity. A P value of 0.05 was considered significant. The comparison among groups was based on the analysis of variance of the difference between basal and follow-up scores MDs (33). All statistical analyses were carried out with Microsoft Excel 2010.
Results
Study selection and analysis
The initial search identified 3510 records: after screening of the titles, abstracts, and full texts, 35 RCTs were finally included in the systematic review, for a total of 3348 patients enrolled (62.5% women, 37.5% men, mean age 61.3 ± 6.9 years, mean BMI 28.5 ± 3.6). The details of the included studies are reported in Supplementary Table 1 (see section on supplementary materials given at the end of this article). Among the included studies, 20 compared CS with HA, 12 compared CS with PRP, while three addressed the comparison between CS, HA, and PRP. Final follow-up time ranged from 2 months to 2 years. Five studies were single-blind, 13 double-blind, one was non-blind, while the others did not report information about blinding. Since the first RCT published in 1991 the publication trend increased over time for studies comparing CS and HA, with a peak of studies between 2015 and 2019. The RCTs comparing CS and PRP were all published in the last decade and also showed and increasing publication trend (Fig. 2).
Number of RCTs published over time on the comparison between intra-articular corticosteroids (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 9; 10.1530/EOR-23-0198
The following scores were retrieved: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score, Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Lequesne index for knee osteoarthritis, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Score. The most employed were pain VAS (22 studies), WOMAC (18 studies), KSS (6 studies), KOOS (4 studies), SF-36 (4 studies), Lequesne (2 studies), IKDC (1 study), Lysholm (1 study), and Tegner (1 study).
Corticosteroids
A total of 1553 patients received CS injections (61.4% women, 38.6% men, mean age 61.5 ± 5.5 years, mean BMI 28.5 ± 2.4). Different types of CS were injected: triamcinolone was used in 14 studies (in both acetonide or hexacetonide formulations), methylprednisolone acetate in 12 studies, betamethasone in 5 studies, and dexamethasone in 2 studies, while 2 studies did not report the corticosteroid used. In 12 studies, the CS injection was preceded by local anesthesia with either marcaine, lidocaine, or bupivacaine. Two injections were performed in two studies, three injections in five studies, and five injections in two studies, while in the other trials a single injection was performed, giving in some cases the possibility to ask for a second injection.
Hyaluronic acid
A total of 1325 patients received HA injections (62.2% women, 37.8% men, mean age 62.0 ± 6.8 years, mean BMI 28.3 ± 2.5). Different types of HA were injected: sodium hyaluronate in 11 studies, Hylan G-F 20 in five studies, cross-linked sodium hyaluronate, HYADD, Hylastan SGL-80, sodium salt of HA, and NASHA in one study each, while two studies did not report the type of HA used. Two injections of HA were administered in two studies, three injections in four studies, and five injections in six studies, while in the other trials a single injection was performed.
Platelet-rich plasma
A total of 470 patients received PRP injections (66.6% women, 33.4% men, mean age 59.8 ± 5.0 years, mean BMI 28.9 ± 2.2). PRP was autologous in all the studies. Three PRP injections were performed in 3 studies, while in the other trials a single injection was performed. PRP dosage of injection ranged from 3 mL to 8 mL. PRP was reported as leukocyte rich in two studies, leukocyte poor in two other studies, while in the remaining studies leukocyte concentration was not reported. Activation was performed in four studies, three times with sodium citrate and one time with calcium gluconate, while in the other studies no activation was performed.
Meta-analysis
Sufficient data were available for meta-analysis for WOMAC score and VAS pain. Based on previous studies, the MCID for the WOMAC score was set at 9, while the MCID for VAS pain was set at 1.37 (34).
CS vs HA
The analysis on the comparison between CS and HA was performed on 15 studies. The analysis of WOMAC improvement was available for 1156 patients in ten studies and showed no difference between the two injective products at any of the follow-ups analyzed. The analysis of VAS pain improvement was available for 1384 patients in 13 studies and showed a statistically significant difference in favor of HA at the long-term follow-up (P = 0.011, MD = −0.95, SE = 0.37), while no difference was found at the remaining follow-ups (Fig. 3). The mean difference (MD) did not exceed the 1.37 MCID.
Forest plot of the individual studies (13, 60, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90) and pooled weighted mean difference (MD) for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain improvements comparing corticosteroids (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA), including a 95% CI. No difference of WOMAC improvement was found between CS and HA at any follow-up. HA provided superior VAS improvement compared to CS at long-term follow-up. The MD did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value of 1.37 points. Red, not statistically significant; yellow, statistically but not clinically significant (MD < MCID); green, statistically and clinically significant (MD > MCID).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 9; 10.1530/EOR-23-0198
CS vs PRP
The analysis on the comparison between CS and PRP was performed on 13 studies. The analysis of WOMAC improvement was available for 530 patients in 8 studies and showed a statistically significant difference in favor of PRP at short- (P = 0.002, MD = −5.41, SE = 1.75), mid- (P < 0.001, MD = −15.22, SE = 2.92), and long-term (P < 0.001, MD = −9.65, SE = 1.02) follow-ups (Fig. 4). The MD exceeded the nine MCID at mid- and long-term follow-ups. The analysis of VAS pain improvement was available for 668 patients in 11 studies and showed a statistically significant difference in favor of PRP at mid- (P < 0.001, MD = −1.47, SE = 0.29) and long-term (P = 0.023, MD = −1.21, SE = 0.53) follow-ups (Fig. 4). The MD exceeded the 1.37 MCID at mid-term follow-up.
Forest plot of the individual studies (59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 77) and pooled weighted mean difference (MD) for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain improvements comparing corticosteroids (CS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including a 95% CI. PRP provided superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups. The MD exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value of 9 points at mid- and long-term follow-ups. PRP provided superior VAS improvement compared to CS at mid- and long-term follow-ups. The MD exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value of 1.37 points at the mid-term follow-up. Red, not statistically significant; yellow, statistically but not clinically significant (MD < MCID); green, statistically and clinically significant (MD > MCID).
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 9; 10.1530/EOR-23-0198
Risk of bias and quality of evidence
The evaluation using the RoB 2.0 tool showed that 14 study had a ‘low risk’ of bias, 18 studies had ‘some concerns,’ and three had a ‘high risk’ of bias. A summary of the risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs is illustrated in Fig. 5 (35). The GRADE evaluation showed that the level of evidence of the results was low in almost all the outcomes, with only four outcomes with a moderate level of evidence. A summary of the quality of evidence assessment of the meta-analyzed outcomes is illustrated in Table 1.
Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (13, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91) Version 2 (RoB 2.0). Green, low risk; yellow, some concerns; red, high risk.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 9; 10.1530/EOR-23-0198
GRADE evaluation.
| Outcomes | RoB | Incon | Indir | Imprecision | Pub bias | Other | Quality of the evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS vs PRP | |||||||
| VAS | |||||||
| Very short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low : ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Mid-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Long-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| WOMAC | |||||||
| Very short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Mid-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Long-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| CS vs HA | |||||||
| VAS | |||||||
| Very short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Short-term | No | Some | No | No | No | No | Moderate: ⊕⊕⊕◯ |
| Mid-term | No | Some | No | No | No | No | Moderate: ⊕⊕⊕◯ |
| Long-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| WOMAC | |||||||
| Very short-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
| Short-term | No | Some | No | No | No | No | Moderate: ⊕⊕⊕◯ |
| Mid-term | No | Some | No | No | No | No | Moderate: ⊕⊕⊕◯ |
| Long-term | No | Some | No | Some | No | No | Low: ⊕⊕◯◯ |
Incon, inconsistency; Indir, indirectness; Pub, publication; RoB, risk of bias.
Discussion
The main findings of this meta-analysis question the current support for CS injections versus other injectable options. CS injections offers similar results to HA and PRP in terms of pain relief and functional improvement only at very short-term follow-up, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. The difference is not only statistically significant, but also clinically relevant in favor of PRP in patients affected by knee OA.
Intra-articular injective therapies represent a well-accepted conservative approach to address knee OA, especially in the early-to-moderate stages (36). Among the available alternatives, CS, HA, and PRP represent the most frequently prescribed products, but despite their widespread use in the clinical practice, the current major international societies guidelines do not provide concordant recommendations and the most appropriate intra-articular option for knee OA remains debated (17, 20, 37). CS is the option receiving more endorsement compared to HA and PRP for the management of knee OA. However, when looking at the scientific evidence, the benefits offered by CS injections seem to be lower compared to other injective approaches. The present meta-analysis provided the most updated and comprehensive evidence on the most common intra-articular options for knee OA, quantifying and comparing the benefits offered by CS in comparison to HA and PRP. Most importantly, this meta-analysis focused on the clinical relevance of the literature findings, analyzing the obtained results in light of the MCID of the scores analyzed. This represents a crucial aspect since statistically significant results do not always translate into clinically appreciable benefits for patients, and study results should always be interpreted in terms of the patient perspective (59).
The oldest and most documented alternative to CS is HA. The meta-analysis documented similar results, with negligible differences. The results of this study on the analysis comparing CS and HA outcomes showed a statistically significant difference in favor of HA only in terms of VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up, and this improvement did not exceed the MCID, failing to prove a clinical superiority in terms of patient’s perception. Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two injectable products in terms of VAS pain improvement at shorter follow-ups or in terms of WOMAC improvement at any of the follow-ups analyzed. A previous Cochrane review published by Bellamy et al. (38) as well as previous meta-analyses supported the equivalence between these two products or suggested a moderate superiority of HA at longer follow-ups (39, 38, 40, 41, 42). However, the strength of the current meta-analysis lies in the inclusion of a larger number of studies and even more in the interpretation of the clinical relevance of the obtained results. These results show that the two products offer similar results in terms of both entity and duration of the effects, and that the claimed superiority of HA compared to CS in terms of duration of effect on pain relief for knee OA treatment is minimal.
The comparison with PRP showed different findings. The results of the analysis comparing CS and PRP outcomes showed that PRP was able to produce a statistically higher WOMAC improvement at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-ups. Similarly, the VAS pain improvement analysis identified a statistically significant difference in favor of PRP at mid- and long-term follow-ups. These improvements exceeded the MCID at mid- and long-term for WOMAC and at mid-term for VAS, demonstrating the clinical relevance of the benefits offered by PRP compared to CS. Previous meta-analyses on a lower number of studies suggested the potential of PRP to provide better results than CS by showing statistically superior results in terms of pain relief and functional improvement at intermediate and longer follow-ups but without investigating the clinical relevance of the observed findings (40, 41, 42, 43, 44). The results of the current study shed new light on the differences among these treatments in terms of effect and duration that patients could expect using CS, HA, or PRP. Looking at the obtained results, PRP seems to be a more effective injective approach for the treatment of knee OA patients.
Another aspect, beside treatment effectiveness, is important and should be considered in the clinical practice. In fact, there is an ongoing debate regarding the safety profile of intra-articular CS injections, with controversial findings reported in the current literature. At preclinical level, CS present anti-anabolic effects on healthy cartilage, raising questions about their potential damage to the cartilage joint surface (45, 46). In vitro studies showed deleterious effects of different CS on cartilage tissue, inducing apoptosis in human chondrocytes and aggravating the condition of the cartilage matrix already suffering from the OA environment, upregulating aggrecanases, collagenases, and metalloproteinases, and reducing lubricin production (45, 46, 47). In vivo studies on animal models also highlighted negative effects of CS injections on cartilage tissue, with loss of normal luster, fine fissures, cartilage thinning, matrix fibrillation, chondrocyte distribution, hypocellularity, and a decrease in the concentration of articular cartilage proteoglycans (46, 48, 49). These findings raised concerns about the risks that intra-articular CS might facilitate tissue atrophy, joint destruction, and cartilage degeneration also in the clinical setting. This was confirmed in a recent saline controlled, double-blind RCT on 140 knee OA patients with ultrasound documented synovitis receiving an intra-articular injection of 40 mg of triamcinolone every 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation at 2 years revealed a significantly greater cartilage volume loss in patients treated with CS injections compared to saline controls (50). A study from the Osteoarthritis Initiative confirmed that intra-articular CS injections, especially repeated CS administrations, are associated with an increased risk of knee OA progression in terms of KL grade and joint space narrowing compared to controls (51). On the other hand, the clinical relevance of the joint space narrowing documented remains controversial, and a more recent study using the Osteoarthritis Initiative database and the database of the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study found that intra-articular CS injections were not associated with an increased risk of knee OA progression when compared to HA injections (52). Nonetheless, considering their controversial safety profile, as well as the lack of superiority compared to HA and the lower clinical effectiveness compared to PRP, CS injections have no ground to be considered the preferred injective option for the management of patients with knee OA.
This meta-analysis presents some limitations that require consideration. First, the selected RCTs lacked standardization in data collection and reporting of outcome measures and associated follow-up timeframes, reducing the amount of data available for the meta-analysis. Second, the MCID is primarily intended as a measure of clinically significant improvement in a patient undergoing a specific intervention, and the high variability in the MCIDs reported in the literature (53) suggests some caution when considering it in regard to the mean change in a heterogeneous population. Nonetheless, the MCID is increasingly used to interpret the relevance of the difference documented in a quantitative synthesis and represents a useful tool to evaluate the clinical significance of the obtained results (54). Third, while the overall results were both statistically and clinically significant, it is still important to underline that different patients may present different risks and different treatment indications. Cartilage loss may be considered a problem in older patients with more advanced OA, while it could be a primary concern in young patients with early OA. Moreover, swollen knees and dry painful knees may present different treatment response and indication, and many other factors my influence the results and therefore the treatment choice (55, 56, 57) Future studies should investigate which patient categories could benefit the most from each individual product in order to maximize treatment efficacy and tailor the therapy to the specific patient characteristics, optimizing the management of knee OA in the clinical practice.
Despite these limitations, the present meta-analysis was able to provide valuable insights to the scientific discussion on the most suitable intra-articular injective approach to address knee OA, quantifying and comparing the clinical relevance of the benefits offered by the most used products. These findings represent an important reference for patients and physicians considering intra-articular injections, helping them having realistic expectations and optimizing the treatment indications when managing knee OA in the clinical practice.
Conclusion
This systematic review and meta-analysis provided important evidence on the clinical benefits offered by the intra-articular injection of CS compared to HA and PRP to treat OA patients. CS injections offer similar results to HA and to PRP in terms of pain relief and functional improvement at very short-term follow-up, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favor of PRP in patients affected by knee OA.
Supplementary materials
This is linked to the online version of the paper at https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0198.
ICMJE Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the study reported.
Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.
References
- 1↑
Hunter DJ, & Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019 393 1745–1759. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(1930417-9)
- 2↑
Kan HS, Chan PK, Chiu KY, Yan CH, Yeung SS, Ng YL, Shiu KW, & Ho T. Non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Hong Kong Medical Journal 2019 25 127–133. (https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj187600)
- 3↑
Wallace IJ, Worthington S, Felson DT, Jurmain RD, Wren KT, Maijanen H, Woods RJ, & Lieberman DE. Knee osteoarthritis has doubled in prevalence since the mid-20th century. PNAS 2017 114 9332–9336. (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703856114)
- 4↑
Cui A, Li H, Wang D, Zhong J, Chen Y, & Lu H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalmedicine 2020 29–30 100587. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587)
- 5↑
Mobasheri A, & Batt M. An update on the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2016 59 333–339. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2016.07.004)
- 6↑
Mobasheri A, Rayman MP, Gualillo O, Sellam J, van der Kraan P, & Fearon U. The role of metabolism in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Nature Reviews. Rheumatology 2017 13 302–311. (https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2017.50)
- 7↑
Primorac D, Molnar V, Rod E, Jeleč Ž, Čukelj F, Matišić V, Vrdoljak T, Hudetz D, Hajsok H, & Borić I. Knee osteoarthritis: a review of pathogenesis and state-of-the-art non-operative therapeutic considerations. Genes 2020 11 854. (https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11080854)
- 8↑
Rezuş E, Burlui A, Cardoneanu A, Macovei LA, Tamba BI, & Rezuş C. From pathogenesis to therapy in knee osteoarthritis: bench-to-bedside. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021 22 2697. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22052697)
- 9↑
Chow YY, & Chin KY. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Mediators of Inflammation 2020 2020 8293921. (https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8293921)
- 10↑
Bensa A, Salerno M, Boffa A, de Girolamo L, Laver L, Magalon J, Sánchez M, Tischer T, & Filardo G. Corticosteroid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis present a wide spectrum of effects ranging from detrimental to disease-modifying: A systematic review of preclinical evidence by the ESSKA Orthobiologic Initiative. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy In press. (https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12242)
- 11↑
Conaghan PG, Hunter DJ, Cohen SB, Kraus VB, Berenbaum F, Lieberman JR, Jones DG, Spitzer AI, Jevsevar DS, Katz NP, et al.Effects of a single intra-articular injection of a microsphere formulation of triamcinolone acetonide on knee osteoarthritis pain: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2018 100 666–677. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.00154)
- 12↑
Bensa A, Salerno M, Moraca G, Boffa A, McIlwraith CW & & Filardo G. Intra-articular corticosteroids for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of different molecules and doses. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics2024 11 e12060. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.12060)
- 13↑
Tammachote N, Kanitnate S, Yakumpor T, & Panichkul P. Intra-articular, single-shot hylan G-F 20 hyaluronic acid injection compared with corticosteroid in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2016 98 885–892. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00544)
- 14↑
Jüni P, Hari R, Rutjes AWS, Fischer R, Silletta MG, Reichenbach S, & da Costa BR. Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015 2015 CD005328. (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005328.pub3)
- 15↑
Martin CL, & Browne JA. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: what the orthopaedic provider needs to know. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2019 27 e758–e766. (https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00106)
- 16↑
Najm A, Alunno A, Gwinnutt JM, Weill C, & Berenbaum F. Efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroid injections in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Joint Bone Spine 2021 88 105198. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2021.105198)
- 17↑
Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, Arden NK, Bennell K, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Kraus VB, Lohmander LS, Abbott JH, Bhandari M, et al.OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2019 27 1578–1589. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.06.011)
- 18↑
Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, Oatis C, Guyatt G, Block J, Callahan L, Copenhaver C, Dodge C, Felson D, et al.2019 American College of rheumatology/arthritis foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis & Rheumatology 2020 72 149–162. (https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41142)
- 19↑
Bruyère O, Honvo G, Veronese N, Arden NK, Branco J, Curtis EM, Al-Daghri NM, Herrero-Beaumont G, Martel-Pelletier J, Pelletier JP, et al.An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 2019 49 337–350. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.04.008)
- 20↑
Brophy RH, & Fillingham YA. AAOS clinical practice guideline summary: management of osteoarthritis of the Knee (Nonarthroplasty), Third Edition. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 30 e721–e729. (https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01233)
- 21↑
Altman RD, Manjoo A, Fierlinger A, Niazi F, & Nicholls M. The mechanism of action for hyaluronic acid treatment in the osteoarthritic knee: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2015 16 321. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0775-z)
- 22↑
Migliore A, & Procopio S. Effectiveness and utility of hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis. Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism 2015 12 31–33. (https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2015.12.1.031)
- 23↑
Boffa A, Salerno M, Merli G, De Girolamo L, Laver L, Magalon J, Sánchez M, Tischer T, & Filardo G. Platelet-rich plasma injections induce disease-modifying effects in the treatment of osteoarthritis in animal models. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2021 29 4100–4121. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06659-9)
- 24↑
Di Martino A, Boffa A, Andriolo L, Romandini I, Altamura SA, Cenacchi A, Roverini V, Zaffagnini S, & Filardo G. Leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2022 50 609–617. (https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211064303)
- 25↑
Filardo G, Kon E, Roffi A, Di Matteo B, Merli ML, & Marcacci M. Platelet-rich plasma: why intra-articular? A systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical evidence on PRP for joint degeneration. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2015 23 2459–2474. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2743-1)
- 26↑
Filardo G, Previtali D, Napoli F, Candrian C, Zaffagnini S, & Grassi A. PRP injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cartilage 2021 13 364S–375S. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603520931170)
- 27↑
Miller LE, Fredericson M, & Altman RD. Hyaluronic acid injections or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2020 8 2325967119897909. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119897909)
- 28↑
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, & Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009 6 e1000100. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100)
- 29↑
Sedaghat AR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 2019 161 551–560. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819852604)
- 30↑
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, et al.RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019 366 l4898. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898)
- 31↑
Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, & Moreira LB. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Research Notes 2012 5 52. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-52)
- 32↑
DerSimonian R & & Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986 7 177–188. (https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(8690046-2
- 33
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, & Rothstein HR. Fixed-effect versus random-effects models. Introduction to meta-analysis. Research synthesis methods 2010 1 97–111. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12)
- 34↑
Saltzman BM, Leroux T, Meyer MA, Basques BA, Chahal J, Bach BR Jr, Yanke AB, & Cole BJ. The therapeutic effect of intra-articular normal saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of evidence level 1 studies. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2017 45 2647–2653. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516680607)
- 35↑
McGuinness LA, & Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Research Synthesis Methods 2021 12 55–61. (https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411)
- 36↑
Bensa A, Albanese J, Boffa A, Previtali D, & Filardo G. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections provide a clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo only at short-term follow-up in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2024 32 311–322. (https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12057)
- 37↑
Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, Towheed T, Welch V, Wells G, Tugwell P, et al.American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care and Research 2012 64 465–474. (https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21596)
- 38↑
Bellamy N, Campbell J, Robinson V, Gee T, Bourne R, & Wells G. Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 2006 CD005321. (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005321.pub2)
- 39↑
Bannuru RR, Schmid CH, Kent DM, Vaysbrot EE, Wong JB, & McAlindon TE. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015 162 46–54. (https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1231)
- 40↑
Donovan RL, Edwards TA, Judge A, Blom AW, Kunutsor SK, & Whitehouse MR. Effects of recurrent intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis at 3 months and beyond: a systematic review and meta-analysis in comparison to other injectables. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2022 30 1658–1669. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.07.011)
- 41↑
Migliorini F, Driessen A, Quack V, Sippel N, Cooper B, Mansy YE, Tingart M, & Eschweiler J. Comparison between intra-articular infiltrations of placebo, steroids, hyaluronic and PRP for knee osteoarthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2021 141 1473–1490. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03551-y)
- 42↑
Singh H, Knapik DM, Polce EM, Eikani CK, Bjornstad AH, Gursoy S, Perry AK, Westrick JC, Yanke AB, Verma NN, et al.Relative efficacy of intra-articular injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2022 50 3140–3148. (https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211029659)
- 43↑
McLarnon M, & Heron N. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2021 22 550. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04308-3)
- 44↑
Sax OC, Chen Z, Mont MA, & Delanois RE. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms and structural changes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Arthroplasty 2022 37 2282–2290.e2. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.014)
- 45↑
Jones IA, Togashi R, Wilson ML, Heckmann N, & Vangsness CT Jr. Intra-articular treatment options for knee osteoarthritis. Nature Reviews. Rheumatology 2019 15 77–90. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-018-0123-4)
- 46↑
Wernecke C, Braun HJ, & Dragoo JL. The effect of intra-articular corticosteroids on articular cartilage: a systematic review. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2015 3 2325967115581163. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115581163)
- 47↑
Farkas B, Kvell K, Czömpöly T, Illés T, & Bárdos T. Increased chondrocyte death after steroid and local anesthetic combination. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2010 468 3112–3120. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1443-0)
- 48↑
Albano MB, Skroch GP, Ioshii SO, Grahels XS, de Alencar PGC, & Matias JEF. Computerized photocolorimetric analysis of the effects of intraarticular betamethasone on the proteoglycan concentration of leporine knee cartilage matrix: influence of the number of intraarticular injections. Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões 2009 36 256–260. (https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69912009000300013)
- 49↑
Ishikawa K. Effect of intra-articular corticosteroid on the meniscus. A histological and histochemical study in rabbit knees. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1981 63 120–130. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198163010-00016)
- 50↑
McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Harvey WF, Price LL, Driban JB, Zhang M, & Ward RJ. Effect of intra-articular triamcinolone vs saline on knee cartilage volume and pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017 317 1967–1975. (https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.5283)
- 51↑
Zeng C, Lane NE, Hunter DJ, Wei J, Choi HK, McAlindon TE, Li H, Lu N, Lei G, & Zhang Y. Intra-articular corticosteroids and the risk of knee osteoarthritis progression: results from the osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2019 27 855–862. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2019.01.007)
- 52↑
Bucci J, Chen X, LaValley M, Nevitt M, Torner J, Lewis CE, & Felson DT. Progression of knee osteoarthritis with use of intraarticular glucocorticoids versus hyaluronic acid. Arthritis and Rheumatology 2022 74 223–226. (https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42031)
- 53↑
Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Tendal B, Hilden J, & Hróbjartsson A. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018 101 87–106.e2. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007)
- 54↑
Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR, Furukawa TA, & Guyatt GH. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012 65 817–826. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.008)
- 55↑
Calvet J, Orellana C, Galisteo C, García-Manrique M, Navarro N, Caixàs A, Larrosa M, & Gratacós J. Clinical and ultrasonographic features associated to response to intraarticular corticosteroid injection. A one year follow up prospective cohort study in knee osteoarthritis patient with joint effusion. PLoS One 2018 13 e0191342. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191342)
- 56↑
Heidari P, Heidari B, & Babaei M. Efficacy and predictive factors of response to intra-articular corticosteroids in knee osteoarthritis. Reumatologia 2020 58 424–435. (https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.102008)
- 57↑
Maricar N, Callaghan MJ, Felson DT, & O’Neill TW. Predictors of response to intra-articular steroid injections in knee osteoarthritis–a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013 52 1022–1032. (https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kes368)
- 58↑
Tschopp M, Pfirrmann CWA, Fucentese SF, Brunner F, Catanzaro S, Kühne N, Zwyssig I, Sutter R, Götschi T, Tanadini M, et al.A randomized trial of intra-articular injection therapy for knee osteoarthritis. Investigative Radiology 2023 58 355–362. (https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000942)
- 59↑
Arora V, Sharma M, Bishnoi S, Mahipal V, Sandhu AS, Khanna R, Aggarwal T, Yadav KS, Jain G, & Sharma SM. Clinical and biochemical correlation of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid using serum matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3) levels in osteoarthritis of knee. Cureus 2023 15 e39625. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.39625)
- 60↑
Szwedowski D, Mobasheri A, Moniuszko A, Zabrzyński J, & Jeka S. Intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma is more effective than hyaluronic acid or steroid injection in the treatment of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, randomized, triple-parallel clinical trial. Biomedicines 2022 10 991. (https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10050991)
- 61↑
Pretorius J, Nemat N, Alsayed A, Mustafa A, Hammad Y, Shaju T, & Nadeem S. Double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing platelet-rich plasma with intra-articular corticosteroid injections in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Cureus 2022 14 e29744. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29744)
- 62↑
Nunes-Tamashiro JC, Natour J, Ramuth FM, Toffolo SR, Mendes JG, Rosenfeld A, & Furtado RNV. Intra-articular injection with platelet-rich plasma compared to triamcinolone hexacetonide or saline solution in knee osteoarthritis: a double blinded randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up. Clinical Rehabilitation 2022 36 900–915. (https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155221090407)
- 63↑
Aakash V, Kumaran NA, Vignesh A, & Vignesh SY. Comparison of functional outcome and pain relief between steroid injection and platelet rich plasma injection in early osteo arthritis knee. IJPSR 2022 13 4985–4990. (https://doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.13(12.4985-90)
- 64↑
Freire MRM, da Silva PMC, Azevedo AR, Silva DS, da Silva RBB, & Cardoso JC. Comparative effect between infiltration of platelet-rich plasma and the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a prospective and randomized clinical trial. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Sao Paulo) 2020 55 551–556. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbo.2018.01.001)
- 65↑
Elksniņš-Finogejevs A, Vidal L, & Peredistijs A. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroids in the treatment of moderate knee osteoarthritis: a single-center prospective randomized controlled study with a 1-year follow up. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2020 15 257. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01753-z)
- 66↑
Maia PAV, Cossich VRA, Salles-Neto JI, Aguiar DP, & de Sousa EB. Viscosupplementation improves pain, function and muscle strength, but not proprioception, in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized trial. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2019 74 e1207. (https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2019/e1207)
- 67↑
Huang Y, Liu X, Xu X, & Liu J. Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid or corticosteroids for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled study. Der Orthopade 2019 48 239–247. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-018-03659-5)
- 68↑
Aamir M, Saddiq K, Ahmad S, Shujah IA, Hayat Makki MK, & Nazir A. Comparison of intraarticular injection of hyaluronic acid and steroids in reducing pain of initial stages of knee osteoarthritis. Medical Forum Monthly 2019 30 45–49.
- 69↑
Uslu Güvendi E, Aşkin A, Güvendi G, & Koçyiğit H. Comparison of efficiency between corticosteroid and platelet rich plasma injection therapies in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Archives of Rheumatology 2018 33 273–281. (https://doi.org/10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2018.6608)
- 70↑
Phul SH, Mobushir M, Jilani RUA, Khan IS, Malik H, Jan G. Comparison of intra-articular steroids injection versus platelets rich plasma injection in patients with osteoarthritic knee joints. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences 2018 12 931–934.
- 71↑
Nabi BN, Sedighinejad A, Mardani-Kivi M, Haghighi M, Roushan ZA, Tehran SG, & Biazar G. Comparing the effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection under ultrasound guidance on pain control of knee osteoarthritis. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 2018 20 e62157. (https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.62157)
- 72↑
Khan A, Gillani SF-U-HS, & Khan A. Role of intra-articular corticosteroid with Xylocaine vs platelet rich plasma for the treatment of early Grade II knee osteoarthritis at Akhtar Saeed teaching hospital Lahore: a randomized controlled trial. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences 2018 12 1432–1435.
- 73↑
Vaishya R, Pandit R, Agarwal AK, & Vijay V. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid is superior to steroids in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative, randomized study. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2017 8 85–88. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2016.09.008)
- 74↑
Siddharth R, & Harleen U. A prospective, randomized trial on comparative study of intrarticular hyaluronic acid with corticosteroid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development 2017 8 14–18. (https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2017.00074.2)
- 75↑
Joshi Jubert N, Rodríguez L, Reverté-Vinaixa MM, & Navarro A. Platelet-rich plasma injections for advanced knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2017 5 2325967116689386. (https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967116689386)
- 76↑
Campos ALS, Albuquerque RSPE, da Silva EB, Fayad SG, Acerbi LD, de Almeida FN, Ooka NHM, Franco JS, & Gameiro VS. Viscosupplementation in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee: six month follow-up of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. International Orthopaedics 2017 41 2273–2280. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3625-9)
- 77↑
Forogh B, Mianehsaz E, Shoaee S, Ahadi T, Raissi GR, & Sajadi S. Effect of single injection of platelet-rich plasma in comparison with corticosteroid on knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2016 56 901–908.
- 78↑
Bisicchia S, Bernardi G, & Tudisco C. HYADD 4 versus methylprednisolone acetate in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a single-centre single blind prospective randomised controlled clinical study with 1-year follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2016 34 857–863.
- 79↑
Askari A, Gholami T, NaghiZadeh MM, Farjam M, Kouhpayeh SA, & Shahabfard Z. Hyaluronic acid compared with corticosteroid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized control trail. SpringerPlus 2016 5 442. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2020-0)
- 80↑
Trueba Davalillo CÁ, Trueba Vasavilbaso C, Navarrete Álvarez JM, Coronel Granado P, García Jiménez OA, Gimeno Del Sol M, & Gil Orbezo F. Clinical efficacy of intra-articular injections in knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized study comparing hyaluronic acid and betamethasone. Open Access Rheumatology: Research and Reviews 2015 7 9–18. (https://doi.org/10.2147/OARRR.S74553)
- 81↑
Leighton R, Akermark C, Therrien R, Richardson JB, Andersson M, Todman MG, Arden NK & DUROLANE Study Group. NASHA hyaluronic acid vs. methylprednisolone for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, multi-centre, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2014 22 17–25. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.10.009)
- 82↑
Housman L, Arden N, Schnitzer TJ, Birbara C, Conrozier T, Skrepnik N, Wei N, Bockow B, Waddell D, Tahir H, et al.Intra-articular hylastan versus steroid for knee osteoarthritis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2014 22 1684–1692. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2438-7)
- 83↑
Habib G, Jabbour A, Artul S, & Hakim G. Intra-articular methylprednisolone acetate injection at the knee joint and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis: a randomized controlled study. Clinical Rheumatology 2014 33 99–103. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2374-4)
- 84↑
Shimizu M, Higuchi H, Takagishi K, Shinozaki T, & Kobayashi T. Clinical and biochemical characteristics after intra-articular injection for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: prospective randomized study of sodium hyaluronate and corticosteroid. Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2010 15 51–56. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-009-1421-0)
- 85↑
Skwara A, Ponelis R, Tibesku CO, Rosenbaum D, & Fuchs-Winkelmann S. Gait patterns after intraarticular treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee–hyaluronan versus triamcinolone: a prospective, randomized, doubleblind, monocentric study. European Journal of Medical Research 2009 14 157–164. (https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783x-14-4-157)
- 86↑
Caborn D, Rush J, Lanzer W, Parenti D, Murray C & Synvisc 901 Study Group. A randomized, single-blind comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of hylan G-F 20 and triamcinolone hexacetonide in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Journal of Rheumatology 2004 31 333–343.
- 87↑
Leopold SS, Redd BB, Warme WJ, Wehrle PA, Pettis PD, & Shott S. Corticosteroid compared with hyaluronic acid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. A prospective, randomized trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2003 85 1197–1203. (https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200307000-00003)
- 88↑
Pasquali Ronchetti I, Guerra D, Taparelli F, Boraldi F, Bergamini G, Mori G, Zizzi F, & Frizziero L. Morphological analysis of knee synovial membrane biopsies from a randomized controlled clinical study comparing the effects of sodium hyaluronate (Hyalgan) and methylprednisolone acetate (DepoMedrol) in osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001 40 158–169. (https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/40.2.158)
- 89↑
Guidolin DD, Ronchetti IP, Lini E, Guerra D, & Frizziero L. Morphological analysis of articular cartilage biopsies from a randomized, clinical study comparing the effects of 500–730 kDa sodium hyaluronate (Hyalgan) and methylprednisolone acetate on primary osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2001 9 371–381. (https://doi.org/10.1053/joca.2000.0398)
- 90↑
Jones AC, Pattrick M, Doherty S, & Doherty M. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid compared to intra-articular triamcinolone hexacetonide in inflammatory knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 1995 3 269–273. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s1063-4584(0580018-4)
- 91↑
Leardini G, Mattara L, Franceschini M, & Perbellini A. Intra-articular treatment of knee osteoarthritis. A comparative study between hyaluronic acid and 6-methyl prednisolone acetate. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 1991 9 375–381.
