THANK YOU FOR VISITING SWEATSCIENCE.COM!
As of September 2017, new Sweat Science columns are being published at www.outsideonline.com/sweatscience. Check out my bestselling new book on the science of endurance, ENDURE: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance, published in February 2018 with a foreword by Malcolm Gladwell.
- Alex Hutchinson (@sweatscience)
Platelet-rich plasma therapy was a super-hot topic a couple of years ago (see earlier blog posts about it), in part because of reports that top athletes like Tiger Woods were using it to speed their recovery from injuries. These days, the fuss has died down a bit. The novelty is gone, subsequent studies haven’t produced the “miracle” results promised by initial case reports, and maybe no one wants to emulate Tiger Woods anymore.
Anyway, studies of PRP continue to trickle in, but the picture isn’t necessarily getting much clearer. Two new studies have just been posted online at the American Journal of Sports Medicine, one of which is a randomized trial of PRP for tennis elbow by researchers in Greece. The design seems pretty good in theory: 28 patients were split into two groups; one group received an injection of PRP (their own blood, spun to produce plasma with elevated levels of healing-enhancing platelets), while the other group received an identical injection of their own unenriched blood. This should eliminate the problem of placebo effects (which are very big in invasive procedures that involve lots of needles), and test only whether the platelets themselves make any difference.
But there’s a problem:
This is a single-blind study. Patients were aware of the treatment because it was practically difficult to mask the process.
I don’t understand this. Maybe there’s something I’m missing — if you know why it would be “practically difficult” to mask the process, please let me know. It seems to me that all you have to do is put the blood-spinning machine in the room next door, and you’re in business with a double-blind study. But that’s not what they did — and to me, that’s an enormous problem, given how much publicity PRP has received over the past few years.
Anyway, the results: they measured subjective pain and perceived elbow function at various points over the next six months. There was only one case where the two groups showed statistically significant differences: pain was lower in the PRP group after six weeks, though the difference was no longer significant at the next measurement (3 months). On the other hand, if you ignore “statistical significance,” the trend was that the PRP patients did better in every measurement.
So how do you interpret these results? It’s pretty clear that the authors of the paper are big boosters of the technique:
[T]here is enough proof to support the superiority of PRP treatment over autologous blood, regarding pain, in the short term…
More studies on this topic could further enlighten aspects of this promising treatment…
In conclusion, we showed that PRP led to pain relief earlier than autologous whole blood, and we believe its application will be increasingly widened in the near future…
Really, I don’t think they showed any such thing. They found results that were statistically insignificant in five of their six outcomes, using two measurements that are largely subjective, in an experimental design that does nothing to eliminate placebo effect for one of the most heavily hyped sports medicine treatments of the past decade. To justify the cost and extra effort required for PRP therapy, they’re going to need more definitive results than that.