Systemic Review: Is an Intradiscal Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lumbar Disc Degeneration Effective?

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Current studies evaluating the outcomes of intradiscal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in degenerative disc disease (DDD) are limited. The purpose of this review was to determine if an intradiscal injection of PRP for degenerative discs results in a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes. A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Level I-IV investigations of intradiscal PRP injections in DDD were sought in multiple databases. The Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) was used to analyze the methodological quality of the study. Only the outcome measurements used by more than 50% of the studies were included in the data analysis. The study heterogeneity and nature of evidence (mostly retrospective, non-comparative) precluded meta-analysis. Pre and post-injection pain visual analog scales (VAS) were compared using two sample Z-tests. Five articles (90 subjects, mean age 43.6 ± 7.7 years, mean follow-up 8.0 ± 3.6 months) were analyzed. Four articles were level IV evidence and one article was level II. Mean MCMS was 56.0 ± 10.3. There were 43 males and 37 females (10 unidentified). Pain VAS significantly improved following lumbar intradiscal PRP injection (69.7 mm to 43.3 mm; p<0.01). Two patients (2.2%) experienced lower extremity paresthesia after treatment. One pati

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.