Abstract
Objective
To assess the effectiveness of pain relief in patients with grade 2 proximal hamstring injury, treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injection, by using the primary outcome of visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 week and 4 weeks of follow-up.
Materials and methods
A single institution retrospective study was performed for image-guided PRP or steroid injections between 12/1/2015 and 10/30/2017 for proximal hamstring injuries. VAS was measured at 1 week and 4 weeks post-injection via telephone interviews and the pain response was recorded into two groups (negative/no change vs. positive). A comparison of pain responses between PRP and steroid was conducted by generalized estimating equation.
Results
Among 56 patients, 32 received PRP and 24 received steroid injections with ages from 13 to 75 years old. At 1 week post-injection follow-up, 23 patients (71.9%) from the PRP group and 11 patients (45.8%) from the steroid group showed positive response. After controlling for age, pre-procedure pain level, and gender, the positive response rate in the PRP group was higher than the steroid group (aOR: 4.04, 95% CI: 1.04–15.63, p value = 0.04). At 4 weeks post-injection, 23 patients (71.9%) from the PRP group and 13 patients (54.2%) from the steroid group showed positive response with no statistical significance (aOR: 2.48, 95% CI: 0.63–9.79, p value = 0.19).
Conclusions
The PRP group had shown more favorable response compared to steroid group at 1 week post-injection, which suggests that PRP therapy can be considered as a conservative treatment choice for grade 2 proximal hamstring injuries with better short-term pain relief based on limited pilot data.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lempainen L, Sarimo J, Mattila K, et al. Proximal hamstring tendinopathy: results of surgical management and histopathologic findings. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:727–34.
Chaudhury S, De La Lama M, Adler RS, et al. Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: sonographic assessment of tendon morphology and vascularity (pilot study). Skelet Radiol. 2013;42:91–7.
Van Den Dolder J, Mooren R, Vloon A, et al. Platelet-rich plasma: quantification of growth factor levels and the effect on growth and differentiation of rat bone marrow cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010;16:1021–9.
Sampson S, Gerhardt M, Mandelbaum B. Platelet-rich plasma injection grafts for musculoskeletal injuries: a review. Curr Rev Musculoskeletal Med. 2008;1:165–74.
Menetrey J, Kasemkijwattana C, Day C, et al. Growth factors improve muscle healing in vivo. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2000;82:131–7.
Crane D, Everts P. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) matrix graphs. Pract Pain Manag. 2008;8(1):12–26.
Foster T, Puskas B, Mandelbaum B, et al. Platelet-rich plasma from basic science to clinical applications. AM J Sports Med. 2009;37:2259–72.
Karli D, Robinson B. Platelet-rich plasma for hamstring tears. Pract Pain Manag. 2010;10(5):17–18.
Habib GS, Saliba W, Nashashibi M. Local effects of intra-articular corticosteroids. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29:347–56.
Diiorio TM, Burkholder JD, Good RP, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF. Platelet-rich plasma does not reduce blood loss or pain or improve range of motion after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:138–43.
Lai LP, Stitik TP, Foye PM, Georgy JS, Patibanda V, Chen B. Use of platelet-rich plasma in intra-articular knee injections for osteoarthritis: a systematic review. PM R. 2015;7:637–48.
Milants C, Bruyere O, Kaux JF. Responders to platelet-rich plasma in osteoarthritis: a technical analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7538604.
Hamid MS, Mohamed Ali MR, Yusof A, et al. Platelet-rich plasma injections for the treatment of hamstring injuries: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2410–8.
Mlynarek RA, Kuhn AW, Bedi A. Platelet-rich plasma in orthopedic sports medicine. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(5):290–326.
Wetzel RJ, Patel RM, Terry MA. Platelet-rich plasma as an effective treatment for proximal hamstring injuries. Orthopedics. 2013;36(1):e64–70.
De Vos RJ, Weir A, van Schie HT, et al. Platelet-rich plasma injection for chronic Achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;13(303):144–9.
De Vos RJ, Windt J, Weir A. Strong evidence against platelet-rich plasma injections for chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:952–6.
Bird SB, Dickson EW. Clinically significant changes in pain along the visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:639–43.
Nourissat G, Ornetti P, Berenbaum F, et al. Does platelet-rich plasma deserve a role in the treatment of tendinopathy? Joint Bone Spine. 2015;82(4):230–4.
Dean BJ, Lostis E, Oakley T, et al. The risks and benefits of glucocorticoid treatment for tendinopathy: a systemic review of the effects of local glucocorticoid on tendon. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;43(4):570–6.
Drezner JA. Practical management: hamstring muscle injuries. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(1):48–52.
Bava ED, Barber FA. Platelet-rich plasma products in sports medicine. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39(3):94–9.
Davenport KL, Campos JS, Nguyen J, et al. Ultrasound-guided intratendinous injections with platelet-rich plasma or autologous whole blood for treatment of proximal hamstring tendinopathy. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:1455–63.
Hamid MS, Ali MR, Yusof A, et al. Platelet-rich plasma: an adjuvant to hasten hamstring muscle recovery. A randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:138.
Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, et al. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg. 2015;23(1):1–5.
Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, P.Y.S., Cai, C., Bawa, P. et al. Platelet-rich plasma vs. steroid injections for hamstring injury—is there really a choice?. Skeletal Radiol 48, 577–582 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-3063-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-018-3063-9