Table 2 Characteristics of the studies
PAPERS | INTERVENTIONS (n. patients or hips) | TOTAL PATIENTS | K-L GRADE | INJECTIONS CHARATHERISTICS | OUTCOME | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEASURES | FOLLOW-UP | MAIN RESULTS | ||||||
INTRA-ARTICULAR MEDICATION | N. INJECTIONS (n/w) | |||||||
Jurgensmeier et al. 2021 [25] | CS (30) KET (28) | 58 hips | >II | Triamcinolone acetonide 80 mg VS Ketorolac 30 mg | 1 | HOOS VAS PROMIS | T0: baseline T1: 1 week T2: 1 months T3: 3 months | KET comparable improvement to CS |
Krautler et al. 2021 [26] | HA (LMW HA): (16) PRP (LP-PRP)( (20) | 36 hips | II-III | Supartz® (620-1170 kDa) 2.5 ml of 1% (10 mg) VS LP-PRP 1-2 ml | 3 1/W | WOMAC ROM | T0: baseline T1: 3 months T2: 6 months T3: 12 months T4: 24 months | Significant improvement in WOMAC and hip internal rotation for LP-PRP group at 6 months. Better WOMAC for LP-PRP until 24 months, between groups. |
De Rezende et al. 2020 [27] | CS (19) CS + 2 ml HA (19) CS + 4 ml HA (22) CS + 6 ml HA (22) | 82 | II-III | Hylan G-F 20® (6000 kDa) 6 ml ± Triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg 2 ml | 1 | VAS ROM WOMAC Lequense | T0: baseline T1: 1 month T2: 3 months T3: 6 months T4: 12 months | Improvement in all groups for pain, function, and quality of life up to a year in HOA. CS+HA improve ROM up to one year. |
Villanova et al. 2020 [28] | HA (37) PRP (37) | 74 | I-IV | Synvisc-One® 60 mg/6 mL (6000 kDa) VS PRP 6 ml | 1 | VAS HHS WOMAC OARSI criteria | T0: baseline T1: 1 week T2: 1 month T3:12 months | Both groups showed improvements in VAS score at each follow-up. HA group showed a significative HHS score at T3 |
Brander et al. 2019 [29] | HA (182) SS (175) | 357 | III | Hylan G-F 20® (6000 kDa) 48 mg/6 ml VS Saline solution 6ml | 1 | WOMAC PTGA | T0: baseline T1: 4 weeks T2: 8 weeks T3: 16 weeks T4: 26weeks | Significative improvements in both groups for all outcomes measures up to T4. |
Clementi et al. 2018 [30] | UHMW-HA (23) MMW-HA (27) | 50 | III | Fermathron S®, UHMW-HA 69mg/3,0 ml | 1 | Lequense index VAS WOMAC | T0: baseline T1: 1 month T2: 3 months T3: 6 months T4: 12months | No significant difference in the clinical outcomes between groups until T4. |
Hyalubrix® 60, MMW-HA (3200 kDa) | 2 | |||||||
Doria et al. 2017 [31] | HA (40) PRP (40) | 80 | I-II | Hyalubrix® 15 mg/ml (3200 kDa) VS PRP 5 ml | 3 1/W | WOMAC VAS HHS | T0: baseline T1: 6 months T2:12 months | PRP did not offer significantly better results compared with HA |
Dallari et al. 2016 [32] | PRP(44) PRP+HA (31) HA(36) | 111 | I-IV | PRP 5 ml VS Hyalubrix® HA 30 mg/2 mL (3200 kDa) | 3 1/W | VAS HHS WOMAC | T0: baseline T1: 2 months T2: 6 months T3: 12 months | At all follow-ups PRP group had the lowest VAS scores, compared with HA and PRP+HA groups The WOMAC score of the PRP group was significantly better at T1 and T2, but not at T3. |
Di Sante et al. 2016 [33] | HA(22) PRP (21) | 41 | II-III | Hyaluronic acid 30 mg/2 ml, (1000-2900 kDa) VS PRP 3 ml | 3 1/W | VAS WOMAC | T0: baseline T1: 4 weeks T2: 16 weeks | The functional WOMAC and VAS score in the HA were better at T2 than PRP. PRP presents significant improvement in VAS at T1 |
Battaglia et al. 2013 [1] | PRP (50) HA (50) | 100 | II-IV | PRP 5 ml VS Hyalubrix®30 mg/2 ml HMW-HA (1500 kD) | 3 1/ 2 W | HHS VAS | T0: baseline T1: 1 month T2: 3 months T3:12 months | PRP showed improvement in HHS and VAS as HA until T3 |
Atchia et al. 2011 [34] | HA (19) SS (19) CS (19) CTL (20) | 77 | Croft I-IV | Durolane 3 ml/60 mg ( 90.000 KDa) VS SS 3 ml VS Methylprednisolone acetate 3 ml/120 mg | 1 | WOMAC NRS | T0: baseline T1: 1 week T2: 4 weeks T3:8 weeks | Significant improvement in NRS and WOMAC until T3 in CS group |
Young et al. 2011 [35] | CS 55 CS + sw: 55 | 110 | Â | Triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg + Bupivicaine 2 ml VS Triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg + Bupivicaine 2 ml + Sterile water 6 ml | 1 | WOMAC Oxford pain chart | T0: baseline T1: 3 months | No differences between groups |