Select Page

Value of PRP Injections

Exit forum Value of PRP Injections

Tagged: 

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by   William Brady, DC May 3, 2016 at 4:55 pm.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1548

    William Brady, DC
    Participant

      As conservative care providers it is part of your job to help patients figure out what to do after they have reached maximum improvement in your office.

      First, we have to bring our A game and make sure we are obtaining maximum improvement. We need great technical skills with testing and treatment. We need great diagnostic skills. We also have to be persuasive as hell to get the patient to manage load, exercise and follow our advice. Only after this, plus an unsatisfactory result can we explore the next, more invasive, steps.

      When it comes to injections we know cortisone and similar injections degrades the tissues and has a worse outcome than no injection at 1 year follow up.

      Over the last two decades PRP has become a topic of much debate and study. We all would love to have an answer for our patients that have degeneration.

      This is from a 2013 meta analysis. It is the most solid assessment I have ever seen. Here is the answer:

      Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. A few excerpts from the abstract: These showed no significant difference between PRT and control…These also showed no difference between groups… These also showed no difference between groups (again)… at short- and long-term follow-up, these do not translate into clinically relevant differences…The clinical significance of this result is marginal… This showed no statistically or clinically significant differences between the two groups…

      AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Overall, and for the individual clinical conditions, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of PRT for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries.

      From another paper published in 2015: “PRP preparations are being extensively used in wound healing and tissue repair despite insufficient evidence of support.”

      Simply put, providers of PRP are selling the dream rather than the reality. Making money rather than giving the patient what they need. This is not unique to PRP, how many of our colleagues (DC, PT, MD) provide treatment with no real benefit? It’s even the standard of care.

      This is what makes ID providers so unique and rare. We cut through the bullshit and give the patient the truth.

    Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.