Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. There are numerous non-operative treatments available including platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections. PPR has demonstrated effectiveness for a range of musculoskeletal conditions including plantar fasciitis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of PRP to other conservative treatment options for the management of PF.

METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed for randomized control trials (RCT) comparing PRP to other treatment modalities. Studies met inclusion criteria if mean and standard deviations for visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, plantar fascia thickness (PFT), Foot Function Index (FFI), or American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score were reported. Mean differences (MD) were used to compare VAS pain, PFT, FFI, and AOFAS between PRP and other treatments.

RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs which altogether included 1356 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS pain scores compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) (SMD: 0.86; CI: [0.30, 1.41]; p = 0.002), corticosteroid injections (CSI) (SMD: 1.08; CI: [0.05, 2.11]; p = 0.04), and placebo (SMD: 3.42; CI: [2.53, 4.31]; p < 0.00001). In terms of FFI, no significant differences existed among PRP, ESWT, CSI, dextrose prolotherapy (DPT), and meridian trigger points (MTP) in enhancing foot functionality. However, PRP demonstrated a marked advantage over phonophoresis, showing a substantial improvement in FFI scores (SMD: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.34-3.81). PRP did not demonstrate superiority over ESWT, CSI, or MTP for improving PFT, but it was notably more effective than phonophoresis (SMD: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43-3.94). PRP demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AOFAS scores over CSI (SMD: 3.31, CI: [1.35, 5.27], p = 0.0009) and placebo (SMD: 3.75; CI: [2.81, 4.70]; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION: PRP is more effective than CSI, ESWT, and placebo in reducing VAS and more effective than CSI and placebo in improving AOFAS. PRP did not demonstrate a consistent advantage across all outcome measures, such as PFT and FFI. These findings underscore the complexity of PF treatment and call for a more standardized approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I Meta-Analysis.