Efficacy of intradiscal autologous platelet-rich plasma injection in chronic lumbar disc prolapse: A quasi-experimental study

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the study participants, n (%)

Demographic characteristics		PRP group (n = 17)	Physiotherapy group (n = 22)	P value
Age, mean ± SD		28.9 ± 8.6	31.8 ± 7.8	0.271
Sex	Male	16 (94.1)	19 (86.4)	0.422
	Female	1 (5.9)	3 (13.6)
Occupation	Labourer	6 (35.3)	4 (18.2)	0.462
	Farmer	2 (11.8)	3 (13.6)
	Factory worker	2 (11.8)	1 (4.5)
	Student	3 (17.6)	3 (13.6)
	Others	4 (23.5)	11 (50)
Level of disc disease	L3-L4	1 (5.9)	0 (0.0)	0.3852
	L4-L5	6 (35.3)	11 (50.0)
	L5-S1	10 (58.8)	11 (50.0)
Location of disc herniation	Left paracentral	4 (23.5)	3 (13.6)	0.6012
	Posterocentral	9 (52.9)	15 (68.2)
	Right paracentral	4 (23.5)	4 (18.2)

¹t-test.

²χ² test.

PRP: Platelet-rich plasma.

Table 2 Difference of mean Visual Analogue Scale score at different time intervals between the platelet-rich plasma group and the physiotherapy group

Descriptive statistics	Group	Mean	SD
VAS baseline	PRP (n = 17)	8.171	0.6622
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	5.355	1.5668
	Total (n = 39)	6.582	1.8822
VAS week-3	PRP (n = 17)	5.847	1.8101
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	4.550	2.1456
	Total (n = 39)	5.115	2.0852
VAS week-6	PRP (n = 17)	5.224	1.9273
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	4.323	1.9859
	Total (n = 39)	4.715	1.9870

VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; PRP: Platelet-rich plasma.

Table 3 Difference of mean Visual Analogue Scale score at different time intervals between the platelet-rich plasma group and the physiotherapy group - pairwise comparisons

Time (I)	Time (J)	Mean difference (I-J)	SE	Sig.1 (P value)	95%CI for difference1
					Lower	Upper
Baseline	3 weeks	1.564a	0.256	< 0.05	0.922	2.206
	6 weeks	1.989a	0.247	< 0.05	1.371	2.608
3 weeks	Baseline	-1.564a	0.256	< 0.05	-2.206	-0.922
	6 weeks	0.425	0.188	0.089	-0.047	0.897
6 weeks	Baseline	-1.989a	0.247	< 0.05	-2.608	-1.371
	3 weeks	-0.425	0.188	0.089	-0.897	0.047

^aP < 0.05, the mean difference is significant.

¹Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Based on estimated marginal means. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Table 4 Difference of mean Functional Rating Index score at different time intervals between the platelet-rich plasma group and the physiotherapy group

Descriptive statistics	Group	Mean	SD
FRI baseline	PRP (n = 17)	82.500	6.6144
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	53.750	16.3436
	Total (n = 39)	66.282	19.3553
FRI week-3	PRP (n = 17)	63.3824	17.27401
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	47.0455	17.36575
	Total (n = 39)	54.1667	18.96442
FRI week-6	PRP (n = 17)	57.7941	16.90697
	Physiotherapy (n = 22)	44.0909	20.00812
	Total (n = 39)	50.0641	19.72248

FRI: Functional Rating Index; PRP: Platelet-rich plasma.

Table 5 Difference of mean Functional Rating Index score at different time intervals between the platelet-rich plasma group and the physiotherapy group - pairwise comparisons

Time (I)	Time (J)	Mean difference (I-J)	SE	Sig.1 (P value)	95%CI for difference1
					Lower	Upper
Baseline	3 weeks	12.911a	2.294	< 0.05	7.159	18.663
	6 weeks	17.182a	2.697	< 0.05	10.418	23.947
3 weeks	Baseline	-12.911a	2.294	< 0.05	-18.663	-7.159
	6 weeks	4.271a	1.433	< 0.05	0.678	7.865
6 weeks	Baseline	-17.182a	2.697	< 0.05	-23.947	-10.418
	3 weeks	-4.271a	1.433	< 0.05	-7.865	-0.678

^aP < 0.05, the mean difference is significant.

¹Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Based on estimated marginal means. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Table 6 Summary of serial improvements noted in the patients included in the study, mean ± SD

Outcome	3 weeks		6 weeks
	Value	P value	Value	P value
PRP group (n = 17)
VAS score	2.32 ± 1.6	< 0.001	2.94 ± 1.5	0.02
FRI score	19.11 ± 17.1	< 0.001	24.70 ± 15.5	0.004
Physiotherapy group (n = 22)
VAS score	0.81 ± 1.4	< 0.001	1.03 ± 1.4	0.012
FRI score	6.70 ± 11.5	< 0.01	9.66 ± 17.5	0.017

VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; FRI: Functional Rating Index; PRP: Platelet-rich plasma.