Does PRP work the same way in each body part?

What did knee and hip studies find?

The largest blinded knee study followed 288 adults. At 12 months, PRP didn't bring a clear pain gain over saline. It also made no clear difference in cartilage loss. Other study reviews found later gains over common joint shots.

Hip results aren't as hopeful. A review found no joint treatment clearly better than saline for hip arthritis. If sitting, walking, or stairs raise your soreness, start with an exam. Easy motion, medicine, or a brace may still help.

What did shoulder and elbow studies find?

Shoulder studies don't give one answer. Some found a short benefit over a steroid shot. Another found no added benefit over saline when both groups exercised. Your exact shoulder problem matters.

A 2024 elbow review found steroid worked better in the first two months. PRP worked better from six months onward. QC Kinetix uses the name medical providers for its examiners. Since that name doesn't state a worker's title, ask who will see you.

What did foot and Achilles studies find?

A 2024 foot review found better soreness scores with PRP than several other treatments. It didn't find a gain on every measure. A 2025 Achilles review found no benefit over a harmless look-alike treatment. That result didn't change through one year.

QC Kinetix offers regenerative treatments, its term for non-surgical choices made with a part of your blood. The exam helps show whether those choices fit the sore body part. Bring any X-ray report and notes about past care. Ask which study most closely matches what the exam found.

Sources

1. In the RESTORE trial - the largest placebo-controlled PRP trial in knee osteoarthritis - 288 adults aged 50+ with symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 medial knee OA received three weekly intra-articular injections of leukocyte-poor PRP from a commercial system or saline placebo. At 12 months the mean change in knee pain was -2.1 points with PRP versus -1.8 with saline (difference -0.4; 95% CI -0.9 to 0.2; P=.17) against a minimum clinically important difference of 1.8, and the change in medial tibial cartilage volume was -1.4% versus -1.2% (difference -0.2%; 95% CI -1.9% to 1.5%; P=.81). Twenty-nine of 31 prespecified secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group difference. The authors concluded the findings do not support use of PRP for knee OA.

   Bennell KL, Paterson KL, Metcalf BR, et al. — Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415.

2. A Bayesian network meta-analysis restricted to LARGE randomized trials (at least 100 patients per group; 57 trials, 22,795 participants, 18 intra-articular interventions) found treatment effects were larger in the 35 high-risk-of-bias trials than in the 22 low/unclear-risk trials. Excluding high-risk trials, the effects of 16 of the 18 intra-articular interventions in knee or hip OA were smaller than the minimal clinically important difference and most were consistent with placebo effects; triamcinolone had the highest probability of exceeding the MID at weeks 2-6.

   Pereira TV, Saadat P, Bobos P, et al. — Effectiveness and safety of intra-articular interventions for knee and hip osteoarthritis based on large randomized trials: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2024.08.014.

3. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials (730 patients) with lateral epicondylitis found corticosteroid better than PRP in the short term (under 2 months) on VAS pain (MD 0.93; 95% CI 0.42-1.44) and DASH (MD 10.23; 95% CI 9.08-11.39), while PRP was better in the long term (6 months or more) on VAS (MD -2.18; 95% CI -3.13 to -1.22), DASH (MD -8.13) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MD 16.53). The two treatments trade places over time rather than one dominating.

   Xu Y, Li T, Wang L, et al. — Platelet-Rich Plasma Has Better Results for Long-term Functional Improvement and Pain Relief for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231213087.

4. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PRP with other modalities for plantar fasciitis found PRP more effective than corticosteroid injection, extracorporeal shockwave therapy and placebo on VAS pain, and better than corticosteroid and placebo on AOFAS - but found no consistent advantage across every outcome measured, and called for a more standardised approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.

   Herber A, Covarrubias O, Daher M, et al. — Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.004.

5. An updated meta-analysis of six randomized trials (422 patients) found no benefit of PRP over placebo for Achilles tendinopathy on VISA-A at 3 months (mean difference 1.7; 95% CI -1.8 to 5.2), 6 months (0.5; 95% CI -8.5 to 9.3) or 1 year (-7.9; 95% CI -27.3 to 11.6), nor on VAS pain at 3 months. Funnel-plot asymmetry suggested publication bias inflating apparent benefits. The authors wrote that PRP should not be used to treat Achilles tendinopathy until high-quality trials show a clear clinical benefit.

   Barreto ESR, Antunes Junior CR, Silva IC, et al. — Is Platelet-rich Plasma Effective in Treating Achilles Tendinopathy? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2025. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003349.

6. A scoping review of PRP for knee and hip osteoarthritis reported that PRP for knee OA gives clinically comparable or superior outcomes to other injection treatments, that the evidence in HIP osteoarthritis is far less consistent, and that evidence is lacking to show the presence of leukocytes significantly influences clinical outcomes. It named leukocyte concentration, OA grade and formulation comparability as the open questions.

   Tanguilig G, Dhillon J, Kraeutler MJ, et al. — Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Pain: A Scoping Review. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-024-09916-9.

7. The devices used to spin PRP at the point of care are cleared by FDA as clinical centrifuges, product code JQC, a Class I device under 21 CFR 862.2050 - for example the Biomet GPS Platelet Separation Kit (K030555, cleared 2003) and the Harvest SmartPrep2 / SmartPrep Platelet Concentration System (K103340, cleared 2010). That clearance covers the equipment that separates blood. It is not an FDA approval of platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for osteoarthritis, tendinopathy or any other orthopedic condition, and copy must never blur the two.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) — 510(k) Premarket Notification database and Product Classification: JQC, Centrifuges (Micro, Ultra, Refrigerated) For Clinical Use, 21 CFR 862.2050. FDA accessdata (CDRH device databases), 2003.