SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2025
Overview of Available Treatments and Their Limitations for Hypertrophic Facet Joints-A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians worldwide face the challenging task of improving patient satisfaction by reducing pain in injured patients. Currently, available therapeutic approaches provide only short-term relief of symptoms without addressing long-term satisfaction. This has led to exploring regenerative treatment options that can deliver better outcomes. One such promising option is platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, which are gaining popularity as an alternative to standard steroid injections.
objectivesThis study examines the therapeutic effects of PRP injections in adult patients with stress or traumatic injuries.
methodsThe systematic literature review yielded 60,301 articles, books, and websites verified and removed from the final project. The final studies used in the report comprised randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports on injecting biologics into the epidural space, facet joints, or sacroiliac joints. In total, 15 reviews and 13 studies were included in this review.
resultsIn the Wu et al study, 46 participants were randomly divided into group A (0.5 mL PRP injection) and group B (1.5 mL methylprednisolone injection). Although group B initially showed a notable pain reduction at one week, it diminished over 6 months, with group A consistently improving, reaching an 80.96% success rate and higher patient satisfaction. In the study by Singla et al comparing PRP (group P) and corticosteroid (group S) in 40 participants, PRP demonstrated a markedly greater reduction in VAS Scale at 6 weeks and 3 months, with a 90% effectiveness compared with 75% for steroids.
conclusionPRP injections offer greater pain alleviation, disability reduction, and overall patient satisfaction improvements due to their effect on the immune response to promote the growth and proliferation of damaged tissue. It has also been shown to offer a safer alternative that carries fewer risks than that of transforaminal steroid injections due to promising clinical trials and scientific investigation outcomes. Several of the steroid injection studies proved to have mixed results and efficacy because patients reporting having similar pain relief with placebo groups that used saline injections. Further studies will be needed to evaluate PRP's long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness for practical patient use in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.