Background. We compared platelet rich plasma (PRP) injection to cortisone (40mg triamcinolone) injection in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis resistant to traditional nonoperative management. The aims were to compare early and long term efficacy of PRP to that of Steroid (3, 6 and 12 months after injection). Methods. 60 heels with intractable plantar fasciitis with failed conservative treatment were randomized to either PRP or Steroid injection. All patients were assessed with Roles-Maudsley (RM) Score, Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. Data was collected prospectively on the cohort, pre-treatment, at 3, 6 and 12 months post injection. The mean scores of the two groups were compared using Student t test. Results. Pre-injection, the two groups were well matched with no statistically significant difference in the values. At 3 months, all three outcome scores in both groups had significantly improved from their pretreatment level with no significant difference between the groups (PRP: RM 3.7 to 2.0, VAS 8.3 to 3.5, AOFAS 58 to 84; Steroid: RM 3.6 to 1.9, VAS 8.3 to 2.8, AOFAS 57 to 86). At 6 months, improvement was maintained in both groups with no significant difference between groups (PRP: RM 2.1, VAS 3.7, AOFAS 89; Steroid: RM 2.2, VAS 3.3, and AOFAS 84). At 12 months, all outcome measures were significantly better for the PRP group as response in the steroid group had deteriorated (PRP: RM 1.9, VAS 3.3 and AOFAS 89; Steroid: RM 2.6, VAS 5.1 and AOFAS 77: p = 0.008, 0.02 and 0.002 respectively). Conclusions. PRP is better for the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis as compared to steroid. It shows no statistical difference in effectiveness early on, but unlike steroid, its effectiveness does not wear off with time, making it more durable

Platelet rich plasma has been advocated for the treatment of plantar fasciitis but there are few good quality clinical trials to support its use. We report a pilot double blind randomised controlled trial of platelet rich plasma versus normal saline. Methods. Patients with more than 6 months of MRI proven plantar fasciitis who had failed conservative management were invited to participate in this study. Patients were block randomised to either platelet rich plasma injection (intervention) or equivalent volume of normal saline (control). The techniques used for the injection and rehabilitation were standardised for both groups. The patient and independent assessor were blinded. Visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and painDETECT were recorded pre-op and at 6 months. Results. Twenty-eight patients (19 females, mean age 50 years) were recruited, with 14 randomised to each arm. At 6 month follow-up, 8 patients (28.6%) were lost to follow-up. There was a significant change in VAS score from baseline to follow-up in both intervention (mean change 37.2, p = 0.008) and control (mean change 42.2, p = 0.003) groups. However there was no difference between the arms in terms of the change in VAS score from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.183). There was no correlation between pre-op PainDETECT score and change in VAS. Conclusion. This pilot study has failed to show a significant benefit of platelet rich plasma compared to saline injection, although both treatments have shown a significant improvement in symptoms. This may be due to the needling effect of injections. A larger study is required to demonstrate a meaningful change. Loss to follow in this patient group should be considered

Background. Disability and slow return to sport and work after tendon rupture are major challenges. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is an autologous supraphysiological concentration of platelets from whole blood that has demonstrated positive cellular and physiological effects on healing in laboratory conditions but evidence from adequately powered robust clinical trials is lacking. We aimed to determine the clinical efficacy of PRP for treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods. In a placebo-controlled, participant- and assessor-blinded, trial at 19 NHS hospitals we randomly assigned 230 adults starting acute Achilles rupture non-surgical management to PRP injection or dry-needle insertion (placebo) to the rupture gap under local anaesthetic. Patients with confounding or contraindicated concurrent medical conditions were excluded. The primary outcome was muscle-tendon function, assessed by the limb symmetry index (LSI, uninjured limb/injured limb × 100, higher scores better) of the work (Joules) performed during the heel-rise endurance test at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were: Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS, 0–100, higher scores better), quality of life (SF-12), pain, and goal attainment. Trial registration: ISRCTN54992179. Results. Participants were aged mean 46 years and 57 (25%) were female. 103/114 (90%) of the PRP group and all (n=116) in the placebo group received allocated treatment. At 24 weeks, mean LSI was 34.4 for the PRP group and 38.8 for placebo (adjusted mean difference −4.4 95% CI −11.2 to 2.5, n=201) and ATRS was mean 65.2 PRP vs 65.8 (adjusted mean difference −0.6, 95% CI −4.9 to 3.7, n=224). There were no differences between groups in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion. We found no evidence of PRP efficacy for improving muscle-tendon function or patient-reported recovery after acute Achilles tendon rupture. Our findings challenge the increasing global use of PRP for acute tendon injury and indicate that robust evaluations are required in other applications

Background. The PATH-2 trial found no evidence of a benefit of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) injection versus a placebo after Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) at six-months. ATR often leave longer-term functional deficiencies beyond six-months. This study aim is to determine if PRP affect tendon functional outcomes at two-years after rupture. Study design. Randomised multi-centre two-arm parallel-group, participant- and assessor-blinded, superiority trial. Methods. Adults with acute ATR managed non-surgically were recruited in 19 UK hospitals from 2015 to 2019. Exclusions were insertion or musculotendinous injuries, leg injury or deformity, diabetes, haematological disorder, corticosteroids and anticoagulation therapy. Participants were randomised via an online system 1:1 to PRP or placebo. Primary outcome was Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS) at two-years. Secondary outcomes were pain, Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), SF-12 and re-rupture. Assessors were blinded. Intention-to-treat and Compliance Average Causal effects (CACE) analyses were carried out. Consistency of effects across subgroups age, BMI, smoking and gender were assessed using Forest plots. Pearson's correlation was used to explore ATRS correlation with blood and growth factors. Results. 216/230 (94%) participants completed the 6-months follow-up were contacted. 182/216 (84%) completed the two-year follow-up. Participants were aged mean 46 (SD 13.0), 57 female/159 male. 96% received the allocated intervention. Two-years ATRS scores were 82.2 (SD 18.3) in the PRP group (n=85) and 83.8 (SD 16.0) in the placebo group (n=92). There was no evidence of a difference in the two-years ATRS (adjusted-mean difference −0.752 95%CI −5.523 to 4.020, p=0.757), or in any secondary outcome, and no re-rupture between at two-years. Neither PRP cellular or growth factors correlated with the two-year ATRS. Conclusion. PRP did not improve patient-reported function or quality of life two-years after acute Achilles tendon rupture, compared with placebo, indicating that PRP offers no patient benefit in the longer term