Acta Orthop Belg. 2024 Sep;90(3):549-558. doi: 10.52628/90.3.12669.
ABSTRACT
This meta-analysis focuses on the controversial efficacy and safety of microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) as compared with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the clinical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). We have attempted to provide an evidence-based medicine protocol for the conservative treatment of KOA. Researchers collected and compared randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used microfragmented adipose tissue and platelet-rich plasma to treat knee osteoarthritis. We searched CNKI, Wanfang Database, CMJD, PubMed, Sinomed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies published up to May 31, 2023. Two investigators independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed bias risk using the Cochrane bias risk tool. The researchers then performed a meta-analysis using Revman 5.4 statistics software provided by the Cochrane Library. A total of 4 randomized controlled trials involving 266 patients (326 knees) were included. There were 161 knees in the MFAT group and 165 knees in the PRP group. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in VAS scores between the MFAT group and the PRP group at 12 months after treatment [MD=0.99, 95% CI (0.31, 1.67), P=0.004]. This result showed that VAS scores were lower in the PRP group than in the MFAT group, and that PRP injection reduced pain more effectively than MFAT injection. At 6 months after treatment, Tegner activity scale scores in the MFAT group were higher than that in the PRP group [MD=0.65, 95% CI (0.11, 1.19), P=0.02], and the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the remaining indicators between the two groups. Based on this meta-analysis, PRP appears to be more effective than MFAT in treating KOA in terms of long-term pain relief. However, MFAT was superior to PRP in improving short-term activity function. Overall, there was no significant difference between MFAT and PRP in the treatment of KOA. In addition, MFAT does not increase the risk of adverse events compared to PRP. However, at present, there are few clinical studies on MFAT and PRP, which need to be verified by more rigorously designed clinical trials.
PMID:39851028 | DOI:10.52628/90.3.12669
