Autologous platelet injection therapy has gained increasing attention in recent years as a promising conservative option for osteoarthritis, especially among patients seeking to avoid surgery. The procedure involves drawing a patient’s blood, which is then centrifuged to enrich and Physiotherapie-Behandlung Arthrose Basel amplify the platelet fraction. This platelet-enriched plasma is delivered via intra-articular injection into the symptomatic articulation. Platelets are rich in growth factors that are hypothesized to enhance tissue regeneration and reduce chronic inflammation, fueling hopes that PRP can halt cartilage deterioration while improving mobility.

Clinical evidence on PRP for osteoarthritis have yielded inconsistent outcomes. A number of investigations have shown clinically meaningful benefits, with patients describing substantial pain relief and better functional performance months after treatment. These benefits often surpass those observed with placebo injections or conventional lubricant therapies. Conversely, high-quality RCTs have detected no meaningful advantage between PRP and control groups, particularly in cases of advanced or severe osteoarthritis.

One major obstacle in assessing PRP’s true impact is the lack of standardized protocols. Various providers employ proprietary isolation methods, leading to unpredictable fluctuations of platelet concentration, inflammatory cell inclusion, and full serum profile. This variability makes it challenging to compare outcomes across studies, and obscures identification of the optimal preparation. Furthermore, clinical demographics — including disease severity, patient cohort, activity level, and comorbidities — can significantly affect therapeutic outcomes.

Sustained outcome evidence remains sparse. While some patients report pain reduction enduring for up to 12 months, it is still unknown whether PRP truly modifies the structural deterioration or merely masks symptoms. Definitive answers require multi-center, double-blind RCTs with extended follow-up periods.

Economic and logistical barriers also present practical constraints. PRP therapy is rarely covered by private or public payers, rendering it an patient-pay procedure costing $400 to over $1,000 per treatment. For patients who experience no lasting benefit, this can amount to a meaningful monetary sacrifice.

In summary, PRP therapy represents a viable option for select patients with mild to moderate joint degeneration, offering a safe, non-surgical alternative with rare side effects. However, the body of research is inconclusive to support broad clinical recommendation. Patients evaluating treatment choices should discuss with a knowledgeable provider, acknowledge the uncertainties in efficacy, and establish realistic expectations regarding potential benefits.