Terapias ricas em plaquetas para o tratamento de lesões musculotendíneas: revisão sistemática
Arquivos
Data
2015
Tipo
Tese de doutorado
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
Introdução: as lesões musculotendíneas (LMTs) são frequentes na
prática ortopédica e acometem indivíduos jovens e/ou ativos. Há grande
intersecção entre as modalidades de tratamento (conservadoras e
cirúrgicas) para este grupo de lesões. Neste cenário, as terapias ricas em
plaquetas (TRP) são uma opção de tratamento emergente. Esta tese tem
como objetivo avaliar a efetividade (benefícios e malefícios) das TRP em
pacientes com LMTs. Métodos: através de estratégia de busca definida,
realizou-se a identificação e seleção de ECRs que comparem TRP versus
placebo ou não intervenção. Incluímos as bases de dados até maio de 2013.
Não houve restrições quanto ao idioma de publicação. O critério de
inclusão dos estudos consistia em estudos randomizados ou quasi
randomizados, que compararam a TRP versus placebo ou intervenções
equivalentes ao placebo. Foram desfechos primários: função e dor, através
de instrumentos validados e efeitos adversos. A avaliação da qualidade dos
estudos foi realizada por meio da Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A Análise
estatística consistiu de abordagem meta-analítica. Houve verificação dos
efeitos dos tratamentos, por meio da mensuração da diferença entre as
médias dos grupos para variáveis contínuas ou razão entre os riscos, para
variáveis categóricas. As medidas-resumo foram acompanhadas de
intervalos de confiança de 95%. Os métodos de meta-análise variaram ao
longo da revisão e houve julgamento individual. Avaliação da
heterogeneidade se baseou na estatística I2
e análise visual. Os dados foram
apresentados em gráficos floresta. Para os fins da análise inferencial,
optou-se por alfa de 5%. Resultados: incluímos 17 ECRs e 2 ensaios quasi
randomizados (1088 pacientes). Três estudos foram considerados como
com baixo risco de viés e outros 16 como risco elevado ou incerto. Metaanálises
gerais (sem estratificação de doença) da função no curto (DPM
0,26; 95% IC -0,19 a 0,71; valor de p= 0,26; I2 = 51%; 162 participantes); médio (DPM -0,09, 95% IC -0,56 a 0,39; valor de p= 0,72; I2 = 50%; 151
participantes) e longo prazos (DPM 0,25, 95% IC -0,07 a 0,57; valor de p=
0,12; I2 = 66%; 484 participantes), demonstraram não haver diferenças
entre a TRP e o placebo. Para dor, houve redução no grupo TRP no curto
prazo, entretanto, com benefício clínico limítrofe (DM -0.95, 95% IC -1.41
a -0.48; valor de p<0,001; I2 = 0%; 175 participantes). Os efeitos adversos
foram semelhantes entre os grupos (7/241 versus 5/245; RR 1.31, 95% IC
0.48 a 3.59; valor de p=0,60; I2 = 0%; 486 participantes). Nas meta-análises
agrupadas por condição clínica, não se detectou qualquer diferença
relevante entre os grupos, exceto para função (longo prazo) e dor (curto
prazo), no grupo com lesão do manguito rotador, ambos de relevância
clínica questionável. Ademais, algumas análises sofreram por elevada
heterogeneidade e não foram realizadas. Conclusões: Nas avaliações
gerais, para função, a TRP não é mais efetiva que o placebo no curto e
longo prazo. Há benefício limítrofe (clinicamente irrelevante) em favor da
TRP, para dor, no curto prazo. A taxa de complicações foi semelhante ao
placebo. Na avaliação envolvendo lesões do manguito rotador, há benefício
em favor da TRP para função (longo prazo) e dor (curto prazo), entretanto,
clinicamente irrelevantes. Para outras condições (epicondilite lateral e lesão
do LCA), as TRPs não se demonstraram efetivas. Para outras condições,
são necessários mais estudos.
Introduction: Platelet-rich therapies are being used increasingly in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries such as ligament, muscle and tendon tears and tendinopathies. These therapies can be used as the principal treatment or as an augmentation procedure (application after surgical repair or reconstruction). Platelet-rich therapies are produced by centrifuging a quantity of the patient’s own blood and extracting the active, platelet-rich, fraction. The platelet-rich fraction is applied to the injured tissue; for example, by injection. Platelets have the ability to produce several growth factors, so these therapies should enhance tissue healing. There is a need to assess whether this translates into clinical benefit. This thesis aims to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of platelet-rich therapies for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Methods: Study selection derived from a dedicated search strategy (may 2013) We also searched trial registers and conference abstracts. No language or publication restrictions were applied. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared platelet-rich therapy with either placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no plateletrich therapy for people with acute or chronic musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Primary outcomes were functional status, pain and adverse effects. Treatment effects were assessed using risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data, together with 95% confidence intervals. Where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed-effect model for RR and MD, and the random-effects model for SMD. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using Risk of Bias Tool. Results: We included data from 19 small single centre trials (17 randomised and two quasi-randomised; 1088 participants) that compared platelet-rich therapy with placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy. Three trials were judged as being at low risk of bias; the other 16 were at high or unclear risk of bias relating to selection, detection, attrition or selective reporting, or combinations of these. Data assessing function in the short term (up to three months) were pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions and used four different measures. These showed no significant difference between PRT and control (SMD 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.71; P value 0.26; I2 = 51%; 162 participants; positive values favour PRT). Medium-term function data (at six months) were pooled from five trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used five different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.39; P value 0.72; I2 = 50%; 151 participants). Long-term function data (at one year) were pooled from 10 trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used six different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.57; P value 0.12; I2 = 66%; 484 participants). Although the 95% confidence intervals indicate the possibility of a poorer outcome in the PRT group up to a moderate difference in favour of PRT at short- and long-term follow-up, these do not translate into clinically relevant differences. Data pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions showed a small reduction in short-term pain in favour of PRT on a 10-point scale (MD -0.95, 95% CI - 1.41 to -0.48; I2 = 0%; 175 participants). The clinical significance of this result is marginal. Four trials reported adverse events; another seven trials reported an absence of adverse events. There was no difference between treatment groups in the numbers of participants with adverse effects (7/241 versus 5/245; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.59; I2 = 0%; 486 participants. The available evidence is insufficient to indicate whether the effects of PRT will differ importantly in individual clinical conditions. Conclusions: TRP are not more effective than placebo in the functional assessment. There is a significant, clinical irrelevant benefit of PRT in pain improvement in the short term when compared to placebo. Adverse effects were similar between groups. Dedicated analysis did not show any clinically relevant benefits regarding to PRTs.
Introduction: Platelet-rich therapies are being used increasingly in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries such as ligament, muscle and tendon tears and tendinopathies. These therapies can be used as the principal treatment or as an augmentation procedure (application after surgical repair or reconstruction). Platelet-rich therapies are produced by centrifuging a quantity of the patient’s own blood and extracting the active, platelet-rich, fraction. The platelet-rich fraction is applied to the injured tissue; for example, by injection. Platelets have the ability to produce several growth factors, so these therapies should enhance tissue healing. There is a need to assess whether this translates into clinical benefit. This thesis aims to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of platelet-rich therapies for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Methods: Study selection derived from a dedicated search strategy (may 2013) We also searched trial registers and conference abstracts. No language or publication restrictions were applied. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared platelet-rich therapy with either placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no plateletrich therapy for people with acute or chronic musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Primary outcomes were functional status, pain and adverse effects. Treatment effects were assessed using risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data, together with 95% confidence intervals. Where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed-effect model for RR and MD, and the random-effects model for SMD. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using Risk of Bias Tool. Results: We included data from 19 small single centre trials (17 randomised and two quasi-randomised; 1088 participants) that compared platelet-rich therapy with placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy. Three trials were judged as being at low risk of bias; the other 16 were at high or unclear risk of bias relating to selection, detection, attrition or selective reporting, or combinations of these. Data assessing function in the short term (up to three months) were pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions and used four different measures. These showed no significant difference between PRT and control (SMD 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.71; P value 0.26; I2 = 51%; 162 participants; positive values favour PRT). Medium-term function data (at six months) were pooled from five trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used five different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.39; P value 0.72; I2 = 50%; 151 participants). Long-term function data (at one year) were pooled from 10 trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used six different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.57; P value 0.12; I2 = 66%; 484 participants). Although the 95% confidence intervals indicate the possibility of a poorer outcome in the PRT group up to a moderate difference in favour of PRT at short- and long-term follow-up, these do not translate into clinically relevant differences. Data pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions showed a small reduction in short-term pain in favour of PRT on a 10-point scale (MD -0.95, 95% CI - 1.41 to -0.48; I2 = 0%; 175 participants). The clinical significance of this result is marginal. Four trials reported adverse events; another seven trials reported an absence of adverse events. There was no difference between treatment groups in the numbers of participants with adverse effects (7/241 versus 5/245; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.59; I2 = 0%; 486 participants. The available evidence is insufficient to indicate whether the effects of PRT will differ importantly in individual clinical conditions. Conclusions: TRP are not more effective than placebo in the functional assessment. There is a significant, clinical irrelevant benefit of PRT in pain improvement in the short term when compared to placebo. Adverse effects were similar between groups. Dedicated analysis did not show any clinically relevant benefits regarding to PRTs.
Descrição
Citação
MORAES, Vinícius Ynoe de. Terapias ricas em plaquetas para o tratamento de lesões musculotendíneas: revisão sistemática. 2015. 273 f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências) – Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2015.