Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 25;10(6):94. doi: 10.3390/life10060094

Table 1.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared with control intervention for patellar tendinopathy.

LOE Type of Study Exp Cont Follow-up Control Preparation Kit LR/LP Platelet Conc. Number of Inj. PROM Ref.
Abate et al. III 3 arms PRP 18(18)
HVIGI + PRP 18(18)
18(18) 6 months HVIGI saline Regen Lab A-PRP Kit (Regenlab) LP 1.6× NPC (Native Platelet Concentration) 2 VISA
VAS
[9]
Dragoo et al. I 2 arms 10(8) 12(9) 6 months Dry needling GPS III (Biomet) LR N/R 1 VISA
Tegner
Lysholm
VAS
SF-12
[7]
Scott et al. I 3 arms LR 19(19)
LP 19(19)
19(19) 12 months Saline ACs (Arthrex) LR/LP LR 3.8 × 230,000 (51,000)/µL
LP 3.0 × 227,000 (43,000)/µL
1 VISA
NPRS
GROC
[6]
Vetrano et al. I 2 arms 23(23) 23(23) 12 months ESWT Recover ps kit (Kaylight) N/R 0.89–1.1 × 109 µL 2 VISA
VAS
Blazina
[8]

LOE—level of evidence; exp.—no. of patients receiving treatment in experimental group (no. of patients analyzed at final follow-up); cont.—no. of patients receiving treatment in control group (no. of patients analyzed at final follow-up); ESWT—extracorporeal shock wave therapy; HVIGI—high volume image guided injection; LR—leukocyte rich; LP—leukocyte poor; PROM—patient related outcome measures; VAS—visual analog scale; NPRS—Numeric Pain Rating Scale; VISA—Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment; GROC—Global Rating of Change Scales; SF-12—Short Form Survey.