Neuromodulators do not appear effective for post-viral parosmia.

Is Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) an Effective Treatment for Pressure Ulcers?

Platelet -rich plasma (PRP) and platelet -rich fibrin (PRF) are natural blood components used for cosmetic and medical purposes, including treating conditions such as hair loss, skin wrinkles, tendonitis, and joint injuries. Chronic wounds, such as bed ulcers and diabetic ulcers, present challenging medical issues to treat, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and those responsible for their care. While there have been numerous attempts to utilize PRP and PRF dressings in the management of chronic wounds to enhance the healing process, there remains a scarcity of comprehensive studies on this subject. In this article, we present two cases: Case No.1 involves a post -chemical burn chronic ulcer treated by injecting PRP and applying PRF dressing weekly, resulting in complete healing after three weeks. Case No.2 involves a post -pilonidal sinus abscess incision with a drained cavity, which was treated with PRP injection and PRF clot dressing, achieving complete healing after eight weeks. We prepared PRP and PRF clots in our laboratory by collecting blood samples from our patients and processing them as described above. Based on our study, we recommend that our colleagues consider adopting this technique for managing chronic wounds such as diabetic and bed ulcers.

INTRODUCTION. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is a promising minimally invasive method for treating musculoskeletal disorders based on the use of platelet-rich plasma. Its relevance is due to the growth of degenerative-dystrophic joint diseases and the need for alternatives to surgical intervention. AIM. Analysis and generalization of modern data on the molecular mechanisms of action of autologous platelet plasma treatment, the results of recent clinical studies, as well as analysis of differentiated approaches to autologous platelet plasma treatment in various musculoskeletal pathologies, taking into account the age and clinical characteristics of patients based on high-quality scientific publications from 2020 to 2025. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic analysis of scientific publications for 2020–2025 from the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and eLIBRARY.RU databases was conducted using the keywords In Russian and English: platelet-rich plasma, PRP therapy, regenerative medicine, osteoarthritis, sports injuries, musculoskeletal disorders. The analysis included randomized trials and meta-analyses on the use of autologous platelet-rich plasma treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. The efficacy was assessed using pain scales, functional indicators, and instrumental diagnostic data. The analysis included 45 scientific publications, including 38 foreign and 7 Russian. MAIN CONTENT OF THE REVIEW. In knee osteoarthritis, a positive effect in the form of pain reduction and improved function lasting 6–12 months has been observed, offering advantages over hyaluronic acid. In the treatment of tendinopathies, especially epicondylitis, the use of PRP (autologous platelet rich plasma) shows moderate efficacy. In ligament and muscle injuries, the results are mixed. The quality of PRP, platelet concentration, and individual patient characteristics have a key influence. CONCLUSION. PRP therapy is effective in the comprehensive treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies, especially in osteoarthritis and tendinopathies. The autologous nature of the method ensures its safety. Standardization of protocols, large-scale studies, and development of personalized approaches are needed to improve the effectiveness of treatment and the quality of life of patients.

Platelet-rich plasma in the management of genital lichen sclerosus: A review of mechanisms, evidence, and future directions.

Oral Submucous Fibrosis (OSMF) is a chronic, progressive, and potentially malignant condition of the oral cavity that severely affects patients’ functional capacity and quality of life (QoL). This prospective, comparative, interventional study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of combined Curcumin and Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy versus Curcumin alone and PRP alone in improving QoL among OSMF patients. The study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, from January 2024 to January 2025, involving 90 clinically diagnosed OSMF patients randomized into three groups (n=30 each). Group A received Curcumin alone, Group B received PRP alone, and Group C received combined Curcumin + PRP therapy. Quality of life was assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire, while clinical outcomes such as mouth opening and burning sensation were also recorded. Results demonstrated that the combined therapy group exhibited the greatest mean increase in mouth opening (9.4 ± 2.1 mm) and the most substantial reduction in burning sensation (VAS: 7.8 ± 1.2 to 1.3 ± 0.9), along with the highest WHOQOL-BREF score improvement (23.8 ± 5.6, p < 0.001). No major adverse effects were reported. The synergistic anti-inflammatory and regenerative effects of Curcumin and PRP were reflected in improved mucosal flexibility, pain reduction, and enhanced overall QoL. The findings suggest that the Curcumin + PRP combination offers a superior, safe, and biologically integrative therapeutic option for OSMF management..

AimSlow recovery and disability after Achilles tendon rupture are major challenges. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is an autologous supraphysiological concentration of platelets from whole blood that has demonstrated positive cellular...

Objectives:Plantar fasciitis is a chronic, degenerative breakdown of the plantar fascia that spans the bottom surface of the foot. The injury is associated with point tenderness at the medial side of the heel and pain and tightness with weight bearing. Corticosteroid (CS) injections are a fairly common treatment option after exhausting all other non-operative treatments. Autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) injections may optimize the healing environment for tissue regeneration and repair which may provide greater improvements in pain and function compared to corticosteroid injections. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the pain, function and quality of life in patients who have received an ACP injection versus a corticosteroid injection for the treatment of plantar fasciitis.Methods:We conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients with plantar fasciitis who were referred to our clinic from local primary care physicians. Patients were stratified by symptom duration (less than and greater than three months) and received either an ACP or CS injection. We measured outcomes at two weeks, six weeks, three months, six months, and one year. Our primary outcome was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale; secondary outcomes included the SF-12v2 Health Survey and the Plantar Fasciitis Pain and Disability scale. We used an analysis of covariance to analyze all outcomes. We calculated the adjusted between-group mean difference with 95% confidence interval and associated probability values.Results:A total of 126 patients were included in the analysis (ACP = 64, CS = 62). For our primary outcome, at six months, the mean and standard deviation of the AOFAS Ankle-hindfoot scale was 67.1±18.3 for the ACP group and 70.8±17.6 for the CS group (mean difference -1.7, CI -7.6 to 4.2, p = 0.6). At one year, the mean and standard deviation was 72.3±19.1 for the ACP group and 75.6±17.0 for the CS group (mean difference -1.3 CI -7.3 to 4.6, p = 0.7). There was no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for any of the secondary outcome measures.Conclusion:ACP does not provide greater self-reported pain relief or function than CS injections in patients with plantar fasciitis. Given the know complications of repeated CA injections, ACP is a reasonable first line treatment option.

Background and Objectives: Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome (GTPS) is a common condition characterized by chronic lateral hip pain, particularly among females aged 40 to 60. Various non-surgical options, corticosteroid injections (CSI), platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), are used, but their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ESWT compared to PRP and CSI in managing GTPS. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in March 2025 across PubMed, OVID Medline, and Embase, following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ESWT, PRP and CSI for GTPS were included. A total of 16 RCTs met the criteria: 6 on ESWT, 6 on PRP, and 4 on CSI. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were extracted to compare pain outcomes at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The most used tools for function and quality of life were the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Results: All three treatments ESWT, PRP, and CSI showed reductions in pain and improvements in function and quality of life, as measured by VAS and other functional scores. 1,275 patients were grouped across 16 RCTs, enhancing consistency and comparability. ESWT showed the greatest pain relief at 3 months (VAS 3.14), compared to PRP (3.39) and CSI (3.78). At 12 months, ESWT and CSI had similar outcomes (VAS 3.71), while PRP had a higher score (4.52). However, variability in treatment protocols and baseline characteristics across study populations limits direct comparison and generalizability. Discussion and Conclusion: ESWT appears to offer rapid and sustained pain relief and functional benefit in GTPS. CSI offers similar long-term benefits, while PRP shows moderate mid-term promises. GRADE assessment indicates that the overall evidence is of moderate certainty in supporting all three non-surgical interventions for pain reduction in GTPS. However, further high-quality research is warranted.

Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of platelet rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of chronic meniscus injury. Methods From January 2016 to October 2017, a total of 35 patients with chronic meniscus injury, which courses were more than 6 months, were treated with PRP injection in Shaoguan Hospital Affiliated to Southern Medical University. Their knee joints were immobilized for three weeks after the first injection and followed up for three to six months. Lysholm score, visual analogue pain score (VAS), meniscus rotation test (McMurray test), Stoller injury grading of MR images were used to evaluate the efficacy. The incidence of complications was also observed. Lysholm score and visual analogue pain score (VAS) were analyzed by variance analysis of repeated measurements. The counting data of McMurray test and MRI image were analyzed by chi-square test. Results There were 35 patients with 37 knees and 47 meniscuses, aged from 24 to 71 years, (56±13)years on average. Course of disease were six to 112 months, average (48±33) months. The Lysholm knee score was (65.1±4.8), (68.8±5.1), (71.6±4.8), (72.5±4.9)respectively before treatment, and one month, two months, three months after the first injection; the difference was statistically significant(F=1 968.5, P <0.01). The VAS scores of knee joint were (4.3±0.9), (3.9±0.4), (2.9±0.6)and (2.4±0.8)respectively. The difference was statistically significant (F=72.2, P <0.01). As to frequency of positive, suspicious positive and negative knee joint McMurray test, the cases were 41, six and zero before the treatment; and six, 11, 30 cases after the treatment respectively. the difference was statistically significant(χ2=57.53, P< 0.01). In addition, the Stoller-graduation, stage zero, I, II and III were zero, four, 36, and seven cases respectively before the treatment; six, 26, 11, and four cases respectively after the treatment at three months; the difference was statistically significant(χ2=36.25, P < 0.01). The total effective rate of meniscus chronic injury showed by MRI was 74.47% (35/47). Although there were 10.81% (4/37) knees accompanying with increment of joint effusion showing in MRI, but without special discomfort to patients; the incidence of deep pain was 8.51% (4/47) after PRP injection, which was relieved by heat treatment. No needle injecting tract infection was observed. Conclusion PRP treatment can promote the healing of knee meniscus chronic injury, relieve pain, improve symptoms, improve the quality of life, which has an excellent therapeutic effect; complications should be avoided. Key words: Meniscus; Knee injuries; Platelet-rich plasma; Injection, intra-articular

Low back pain (LBP) has the highest prevalence globally among musculoskeletal conditions and is the leading cause of disability worldwide. A strong positive association between Modic type I change and LBP has been reported in most studies, but the prevalence varies greatly. There is no standard treatment protocol for Modic type I change at present. Intradiscal PRP injection is found to be effective in degenerative spinal disease in terms of improving pain and functional status. This study assessed the effect of intradiscal PRP (Platelet rich plasma) in type I Modic change associated LBP and the change of Modic type 1 on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PRP was injected intradiscally at the L4/5 disc under intermittent fluoroscopy. After 6 months, an MRI of the lumbar spine was carried out to see the changes in Modic type I. Assessment of pain by visual analogue scale (VAS) and disability by Roland‐Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) was done at different time intervals (pre-injection and post-injection at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). Quality of life was measured by 12-item short form health survey (SF-12) before injection and after injection of PRP (1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). A clinically significant reduction of pain and disability was observed after PRP injections. The VAS score decreased from 7/10 to 3/10 and the RMDQ score from 13/24 to 5/24 after the last observation at 12 months. Improvement in quality of life was also observed at 12 months post-injection, as assessed by the SF-12 (Physical component score (PCS) from 43.3 to 68.3 and mental component score (MCS) from 40 to 60). A decrease in high signal intensity on T2WI was seen in the follow-up MRI compared to before the PRP injection. No adverse events following intradiscal PRP injection were observed during this period. In conclusion, intradiscal PRP injection is effective for LBP patients with type 1 Modic change. More prospective studies are needed to establish the safety and efficacy of PRP in type I modic change associated with low back pain.

Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability with substantial healthcare costs, and efficient nonsurgical treatment methods are still needed. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and exercise therapy are used frequently in clinical practice. Whether PRP or PRP combined with exercise is more effective than exercise alone is unclear. (1) Which treatment relieves knee osteoarthritis pain better: PRP alone, exercise, or PRP combined with exercise? (2) Does PRP alone, exercise, or PRP combined with exercise yield better results in terms of the WOMAC score, performance on the 40-m fast-paced walk test and stair climbing test, and the SF-12 health-related quality of life score? In this randomized, controlled, three-arm clinical trial, we recruited patients with mild-to-moderate (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade II or III) knee osteoarthritis with a minimum of 3 points on the 11-point numeric rating scale for pain. During the study period, 157 patients with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were screened and 84 eligible volunteers were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) into either the exercise group (28), PRP group (28), or PRP + exercise group (28). Follow-up proportions were similar between the groups (exercise: 89% [25], PRP: 86% [24], PRP + exercise: 89% [25]; p = 0.79). All patients were analyzed in an intention-to-treat manner. There were no between-group differences in age, gender, arthritis severity, and baseline clinical scores (pain, WOMAC, functional performance tests, and health-related quality of life). The exercise group underwent a 6-week structured program consisting of 12 supervised individual sessions focused on strengthening and functional exercises. Meanwhile, the PRP group received three weekly injections of fresh, leukocyte-poor PRP. The PRP + exercise group received a combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome was knee pain over 24 weeks, measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale for pain (ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst pain, with a minimum clinically important difference [MCID] of 2). The secondary outcome measures included the WOMAC index (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a lower level of disability and an MCID of 12), the durations of the 40-meter fast-paced walk test and stair climbing test, and the SF-12 health-related quality of life score. For the a priori sample size calculation, we used the numeric rating scale score for pain at 24 weeks as the primary outcome variable. The MCID for the numeric rating scale was deemed to be 2 points, with an estimated standard deviation of 2.4. Based on sample size calculations, a sample of 24 patients per group would provide 80% power to detect an effect of this size between the groups at the significance level of p = 0.05. We found no clinically important differences in improvements in pain-defined as ≥ 2 points of 10-at 24 weeks when comparing exercise alone to PRP alone to PRP + exercise (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 3.8 ± 1.8 versus 1.4 ± 0.6; mean difference between PRP + exercise group and exercise group -0.5 [95% confidence interval -1.2 to 0.4]; p = 0.69). Likewise, we found no differences in WOMAC scores at 24 weeks of follow-up when comparing exercise alone to PRP alone to PRP + exercise (10 ± 9 versus 26 ± 20 versus 7 ± 6; mean difference between PRP + exercise group and exercise group -3 [95% CI -12 to -5]; p = 0.97). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcome metrics among the PRP + exercise and exercise groups. PRP did not improve pain at 24 weeks of follow-up in patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis compared with exercise alone. Moreover, exercise alone was clinically superior to PRP alone, considering function and the physical component of health-related quality of life. Despite the additional costs and endeavors related to PRP products, the combination of PRP and exercise did not differ from exercise alone. The results of this randomized controlled trial do not support the use of PRP injections in the treatment of patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, exercise alone is the recommended treatment for reducing pain and enhancing function throughout this timeframe. Level I, therapeutic study.

Introduction:Epicondylitis (lateral and medial) is a common tendinopathy that impairs function and quality of life. Corticosteroid injections (CSI) provide rapid but often short-lived symptom relief, while platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is used as a biologic alternative aimed at tendon regeneration. Comparative effectiveness between PRP and CSI remains uncertain in real-world settings.Materials and Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using de-identified electronic health records from the TriNetX Network (2010–2025). Adults ≥18 years with coded epicondylitis and subsequent PRP or CSI were included. Cohorts were 1:1 propensity-score matched on demographics and comorbidities (age, sex, race, type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypothyroidism, nicotine dependence). Outcomes were assessed over a period of 1 year after the index event and included repeat or new medication, opioid exposure, long-term opioid initiation, visits to the emergency department (ED), functional diagnoses (stiffness, weakness, mobility), physical therapy (PT) utilization, and surgical escalation. Hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios were estimated.Results:After matching, 1,064 PRP patients were compared with 1,064 CSI patients. PRP was associated with higher hazards of repeat or new medication (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.18–1.50; RR 1.21), opioid exposure (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.20–1.83; RR 1.43), PT utilization (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27–1.81; RR 1.41), joint stiffness (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.04–2.59; RR 1.63), dependence on mobility aids (HR 3.63; 95% CI 1.80–7.31; RR 3.60), and surgical escalation (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.19–5.56; RR 2.30). No significant differences were observed for ED visits, long-term opioid initiation, abnormal gait, muscle weakness, or contracture.Conclusion:In this large, multi-institutional real-world cohort, PRP was associated with higher short-term utilization and treatment failure risks compared with CSI. While randomized trials suggest mid-term benefits of PRP, our findings highlight an efficacy–effectiveness gap, likely reflecting heterogeneity in PRP protocols and patient selection. Clinicians should counsel patients about the potential for early symptom flare and higher downstream resource use when considering PRP.

<h3>Introduction and history</h3> While regenerative medicine may seem like a novel intervention in the chronic pain armamentarium, its evolution and in a sense its definition has been intricately related to...

Aging and age-related changes impact the quality of life (QOL) in elderly with a decline in movement, cognitive abilities and increased vulnerability towards age-related diseases (ARDs). One of the key contributing factors is cellular senescence, which is triggered majorly by DNA damage response (DDR). Accumulated senescent cells (SCs) release senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which includes pro-inflammatory cytokines, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), lipids and chemokines that are detrimental to the surrounding tissues. Chronic low-grade inflammation in the elderly or inflammaging is also associated with cellular senescence and contributes to ARDs. The literature from the last decade has recorded the use of platelet rich plasma (PRP) to combat senescence and inflammation, alleviate pain as an analgesic, promote tissue regeneration and repair via angiogenesis—all of which are essential in anti-aging and tissue regeneration strategies. In the last few decades, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used as an anti-aging treatment option for dermatological applications and with great interest in tissue regeneration for orthopaedic applications, especially in osteoarthritis (OA). In this exploration, we connect the intricate relationship between aging, ARDs, senescence and inflammation and delve into PRP’s properties and potential benefits. We conduct a comparative review of the current literature on PRP treatment strategies, paying particular attention to the instances strongly linked to ARDs. Finally, upon careful consideration of this interconnected information in the context of aging, we suggest a prospective role for PRP in developing anti-aging therapeutic strategies.

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of common shoulder diseases.MethodsThe PubMed, Medline, and Central databases and trial registries were searched from their inception to October 2020 for randomized controlled trials of autologous PRP injections for shoulder diseases versus placebo or any control intervention. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. The primary outcome was pain intensity (visual analog scale), and secondary outcomes were changes in function and quality of life (QoL).ResultsA total of 17 randomized controlled trials of PRP versus control were analyzed. From 8–12 weeks to ≥1 year, PRP injections were associated with better pain relief and functional outcomes than control interventions. PRP injections were also associated with greater QoL, with an effect size of 2.61 (95% confidence interval, 2.01–14.17) at medium-term follow-up. Compared with placebo and corticosteroid injections, PRP injections provided better pain relief and functional improvement. In subgroup analyses, trials in which PRP was prepared by the double centrifugation technique, the platelet concentration in the PRP was enriched ≥5 times, leucocyte-rich PRP was used, or an activating agent was used before application reported the most effective pain relief at 6–7 months.ConclusionsPRP injections could provide better pain relief and functional outcomes than other treatments for persons presenting with common shoulder diseases. PRP injections have a greater capacity to improve shoulder-related QoL than other interventions.