Platelet-rich plasma therapy has drawn significant interest in recent years as a promising conservative option for degenerative joint disease, especially among patients seeking to avoid surgery. The procedure involves drawing a individual’s whole blood, which is then processed via centrifugation to enrich and amplify the platelet fraction. This concentrated platelet solution is administered into the symptomatic articulation. Platelets are contain high concentrations of bioactive signaling molecules that are thought to promote cartilage repair and suppress inflammatory mediators, fueling hopes that PRP can delay disease advancement while reducing pain.

Research findings on PRP for osteoarthritis have yielded inconsistent outcomes. Multiple studies have demonstrated significant improvement, with patients describing marked reductions Physiotherapeut in Basel pain and better functional performance months after treatment. These benefits often outperform those observed with placebo injections or basic HA injections. Conversely, other rigorous studies have failed to show superiority between PRP and control groups, particularly in cases of late-stage joint degeneration.

A persistent challenge in assessing PRP’s true impact is the absence of universal guidelines. Different clinics employ unregulated processing systems, leading to wide variations in platelet count per microliter, inflammatory cell inclusion, and matrix composition. This variability makes it extremely difficult to establish best practices, and obscures identification of the ideal protocol. Furthermore, personal health variables — including radiographic progression, patient cohort, activity level, and comorbidities — can modulate therapeutic outcomes.

Sustained outcome evidence remains sparse. While certain individuals report symptom relief lasting for 6–18 months, it is still unknown whether PRP slows the progressive joint breakdown or provides transient relief of symptoms. Clear conclusions require high-quality randomized controlled trials with longitudinal monitoring.

Financial burden and availability also present notable challenges. PRP therapy is typically not reimbursed by major healthcare insurers, rendering it an out-of-pocket expense costing anywhere from $500 to $1,500 per session. For patients who fail to respond, this can amount to a meaningful monetary sacrifice.

In summary, PRP therapy holds promise for select patients with early- or moderate-stage osteoarthritis, offering a well-tolerated, non-surgical alternative with minimal adverse effects. However, the current evidence is inconclusive to support broad clinical recommendation. Patients exploring PRP should consult with a qualified specialist, fully understand the limitations of current research, and establish realistic expectations regarding likely results.