Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis with Platelet-Rich Plasma, Glucocorticoid, or Saline: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Krogh TP · The American Journal of Sports Medicine (2013)
DOI: 10.1177/0363546512472975This double-blind RCT randomized 60 patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis to PRP, glucocorticoid, or saline injection. At 3 months (primary endpoint), no significant differences were found between any of the three groups. The corticosteroid group showed rapid early improvement that was fading by 3 months, while the PRP group showed a slower trajectory. The short follow-up period (3 months) may have been insufficient to capture the delayed PRP benefit seen in longer studies.
Clinical Relevance
Demonstrates that short-duration studies may miss PRP's therapeutic window. When evaluating PRP evidence, clinicians should prioritize studies with 6+ months of follow-up, as PRP's biological mechanism requires time to produce clinical improvement.
Key Takeaways
- No significant differences between PRP, corticosteroid, or saline at 3 months
- 3-month follow-up may be too short to capture delayed PRP benefit
- Corticosteroid showed early improvement already fading at 3 months
- Contrasts with positive results from Mishra 2014 and Gosens 2011, which had longer follow-up
- Follow-up duration is a critical variable in PRP trial design
Key Findings
Pain reduction at 3 months was observed in all three groups with no statistically significant difference between PRP, glucocorticoid, and saline.
Clinical Context
Study Design
Randomized Controlled Trial (Double-Blind)
Condition
Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis
Sample Size
60 patients
Follow-up
3 months
Control Group
Saline Placebo and Glucocorticoid
Primary Outcome
PRTEE
PRP Protocol & Intervention
Injection Frequency
1 injection(s)