Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Lumbar Spondylosis and Sacroiliac Arthropathy: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.