Effects of Platelet-rich Plasma Injections Thesis

Effects of Platelet-rich Plasma Injections - Thesis Example History of Injury Most of the patients had missed at least one game or practice within the last year due to an elbow injury (93.8%) with only one individual making all their games and practices (Table 2). In addition the majority of patients reported diagnosis of a UCL injury, although four (25%) had been given no diagnosis. The diagnoses included tear to the UCL (83.3%), partial UCL tear (8.3%), stress fracture (8.3%) and torn flexor tendon (25%). Many individuals were diagnosed with multiple types of injuries; hence the percentages indicate what percentage of diagnosed patients had a particular type of injury. Treatments that had been taken for the injury varied across rest, therapy, steroid injection, PRP or surgery. All patients had been given PRP injections, as this was a criterion for inclusion in the study. In addition, each patient had used at least one other method, with one patient using all five types, and eight patients (50%) using all but steroid injection as a method of treatment. Rest and therapy were the most popular treatments aside from PRP, with 14 patients (87.5%) using rest as a method of treatment, and 15 (93.7%) reporting use of therapy. Surgery was also popular, with ten patients (62.5%) reporting using surgery as a treatment for their UCL injury. Most patients had a single PRP injection, with only one patient having two and one having three. Time from the PRP injection to first picking up a baseball to throw ranged from two weeks to 16, with an average of 7.3 weeks. Patients were asked to give level of pain on a scale of 0-10 both before the PRP injection and the first time they picked up the baseball to pitch following the injection. The average score before the injection was 3.6, while afterwards it was 6.6. A total of 11 patients (68.8%) reported decrease in pain between before the PRP injection, and the first time they picked up the ball afterwards, four (25%) reported an increase in pain, while one did not give a pain level for after PRP injection. The result for the individual that did not give a pain level can be disregarded for this calculation, making the total proportion of patients that reported a decrease in pain to be 73.3%, and the proportion that reported an increase in pain to be 26.7%. There was some correlat ion between level of pain and weeks recovery time, but not in all cases (Figure 1). Figure 1: This graph shows the level of reported pain per patient compared with the number of weeks of recovery before they picked up the ball to pitch. Reported complications were relatively low, with only three patients (18.8%) reporting a long term increase in pain following the treatment, one (6.25%) reporting tingling or numbness, one (6.25%) reporting increased pressure and tightness, and four (25%) reporting decreased mobility in their elbow. Satisfaction with the PRP treatment was given on a scale of 0 to ten, with an average of 6.8. However, the average does not give the true picture, as responses were dichotomous, with most patients being either highly happy