Double-blind RCT comparing ultrasound-guided leukocyte-poor PRP to corticosteroid injection in 99 patients with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears or tendinopathy. Patient-reported outcomes (VAS, ASES, WORC) were tracked at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The study asks whether PRP provides superior pain relief and functional recovery compared to standard corticosteroid.
A patient with a partial-thickness rotator cuff tear asks whether to spend out-of-pocket on PRP or just get a cortisone shot. This trial gives you an honest answer: PRP provides better pain relief and function at 3 months, but the advantage is gone by 12 months and neither injection changes the roughly 23% surgical conversion rate.
From a shared decision-making standpoint, the 3-month window matters for some patients — those who need near-term functional recovery (e.g., returning to a physically demanding job) may reasonably prefer PRP. For most patients with lower urgency, the long-term equivalence supports corticosteroid as a cost-effective first option.
One nuance worth flagging: the authors cite large retrospective data linking preoperative corticosteroid injections to higher rotator cuff revision rates. For younger, higher-demand patients who are likely surgical candidates eventually, this risk may shift the calculus toward PRP even though this trial does not directly test that outcome.
The MCID thresholds from this paper are board-testable and clinically useful: VAS 1.4 cm, ASES 6.4, WORC 11.7. The CS group failed to reach the VAS MCID at any point, which is a meaningful negative finding regardless of p-values.
Double-blind RCT comparing ultrasound-guided leukocyte-poor PRP to corticosteroid injection in 99 patients with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears or tendinopathy. Patient-reported outcomes (VAS, ASES, WORC) were tracked at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The study asks whether PRP provides superior pain relief and functional recovery compared to standard corticosteroid.
A patient with a partial-thickness rotator cuff tear asks whether to spend out-of-pocket on PRP or just get a cortisone shot. This trial gives you an honest answer: PRP provides better pain relief and function at 3 months, but the advantage is gone by 12 months and neither injection changes the roughly 23% surgical conversion rate.
From a shared decision-making standpoint, the 3-month window matters for some patients — those who need near-term functional recovery (e.g., returning to a physically demanding job) may reasonably prefer PRP. For most patients with lower urgency, the long-term equivalence supports corticosteroid as a cost-effective first option.
One nuance worth flagging: the authors cite large retrospective data linking preoperative corticosteroid injections to higher rotator cuff revision rates. For younger, higher-demand patients who are likely surgical candidates eventually, this risk may shift the calculus toward PRP even though this trial does not directly test that outcome.
The MCID thresholds from this paper are board-testable and clinically useful: VAS 1.4 cm, ASES 6.4, WORC 11.7. The CS group failed to reach the VAS MCID at any point, which is a meaningful negative finding regardless of p-values.