{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03814713896457766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014986376021798364, 'mean_word_length': 5.331896551724138, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ultrasound‐guided injection therapy with platelet‐rich plasma in recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy: A randomized, single blinded, placebo‐controlled trial with 3 months follow‐up

Patellar tendinopathy is a common injury in athletes. In this study we wanted to examine whether 1 injection of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) was more effective than placebo (saline) in the treatment of athletes with patellar tendinopathy. Twenty‐four athletes with patellar tendinopathy of at least 6 months’ duration were randomly assigned to receive either a blinded injection of PRP (n = 12) or saline (n = 12). The primary endpoint was improvement in Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment‐Patella (VISA‐P) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain at rest, while walking, and when the tendon was squeezed. Ultrasonographic outcomes were changes in tendon thickness, the presence and size of a central hypoechoic area, and color Doppler activity. There was no difference between the PRP group and the saline group with regard to the primary outcome, VISA‐P score mean difference 5.4 (95% confidence interval –5.5 to 16.4, P = 0.316). There were no statistically significant differences observed in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in this blinded, randomized, controlled trial, there was no improvement in VISA‐P score, ultrasonography, or any other outcome measures 3 months after an injection of PRP compared with a saline injection.