# PRP results aren't the same for every body part *prp therapy gilbert | Evidence by Joint and Tendon* > This prp therapy gilbert guide sums up PRP results for the knee, elbow, heel, hip, and shoulder without hiding the limits. You'll see what studies found about PRP, a shot using one portion of blood sorted at a clinic, for each body part. Its full name is platelet-rich plasma. What helped a knee may say nothing about your shoulder. Even studies of the same joint don't always agree. That's frustrating, but it's more honest than a promise. With my joint, I'd ask whether the research covered the soreness found on my exam. ## Knee arthritis results are mixed Some reviews found that PRP eased knee soreness more than gel or cortisone later on. One large test found no clear advantage over a salt-water shot. It also found no clear change in cartilage, the slick tissue capping each bone inside the knee. Both findings matter. They tell you that relief isn't certain and may depend on the person and how the clinic made the shot. Ask which finding fits what the exam showed in your knee. ## Elbow and heel relief may take time For tennis elbow, cortisone did better early in a group of studies. PRP did better later, though the proof wasn't strong. Heel studies also tend to favor PRP later instead of right away. Timing matters when soreness affects work, walking, or sleep. Relief months from now won't meet a need next week. Before choosing, decide how long you can wait and what you'll do meanwhile. ## Hip and shoulder studies cover fewer problems One hip study looked at a sore tendon, where a muscle fastens to bone. A shoulder study covered partly torn or worn rotator cuff tendons. The rotator cuff is the set of muscles and tough bands that helps lift and turn your arm. Don't skip this: the problem found on your exam must be like the one studied. QC Kinetix offers non-surgical, blood-based care called joint preservation, but that name doesn't promise it can save your joint. The clinic can explain whether the research fits your soreness. ## Sources 1. A meta-analysis of 18 Level I randomized trials (811 patients receiving PRP, 797 receiving hyaluronic acid, mean follow-up 11.1 months) found mean improvement in total WOMAC scores was significantly higher with PRP (44.7%) than with hyaluronic acid (12.6%) (P<.01), and 6 of 11 VAS-reporting studies found significantly less pain with PRP at latest follow-up. Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA, et al. — [Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302218/). *American Journal of Sports Medicine*, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0363546520909397. 2. 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](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34812863/). *JAMA*, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415. 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](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38357713/). *American Journal of Sports Medicine*, 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231213087. 4. A meta-analysis of 20 trials (1268 participants) covering elbow epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis found that for epicondylitis PRP gave a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in pain versus corticosteroid, with a very large effect size of -1.3 (95% CI -1.9 to -0.7), but the evidence level was LOW; there was moderate evidence that corticosteroid gave better short-term (1-3 month) pain relief than PRP. Huang K, Giddins G, Wu LD — [Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Elbow Epicondylitis and Plantar Fasciitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31821010/). *American Journal of Sports Medicine*, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0363546519888450. 5. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized trials (239 PRP patients, 240 corticosteroid patients) in chronic plantar fasciitis found statistically significant differences in VAS pain favouring PRP at 1-1.5, 3, 6 and 12 months, and in AOFAS function favouring PRP at 6 and 12 months (no difference at 1 and 3 months). Hurley ET, Shimozono Y, Hannon CP, et al. — [Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32426407/). *Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine*, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120915704. 6. In a randomized comparative trial of chronic severe recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, the corticosteroid group's mean AOFAS score rose from 52 to 81 at three months but fell back to 58 at 12 months and 56 at 24 months, while the PRP group rose from 37 to 95 at three months and held at 92 at 24 months. The pattern - steroid relief that fades, PRP relief that persists - is the clearest single illustration of the durability difference. Monto RR — [Platelet-rich plasma efficacy versus corticosteroid injection treatment for chronic severe plantar fasciitis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24419823/). *Foot & Ankle International*, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/1071100713519778. 7. A randomized double-blind trial of 80 patients with chronic gluteal tendinopathy (lateral hip pain) compared a single ultrasound-guided PRP injection with a single corticosteroid injection. At 12 weeks the PRP group had significantly better modified Harris Hip Scores (P=.048), and 82% versus 56.7% of patients reached the minimal clinically important difference (P=.016). Fitzpatrick J, Bulsara MK, O'Donnell J, et al. — [The Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Gluteal Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial Comparing a Single Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection With a Single Corticosteroid Injection](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29293361/). *American Journal of Sports Medicine*, 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0363546517745525. 8. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of 99 patients with imaging-proven partial-thickness rotator cuff tears or tendinopathy compared ultrasound-guided PRP with corticosteroid, following patients to 12 months. PRP produced significantly better short-term pain relief and function than corticosteroid on VAS, ASES and WORC scores. Kwong CA, Woodmass JM, Gusnowski EM, et al. — [Platelet-Rich Plasma in Patients With Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears or Tendinopathy Leads to Significantly Improved Short-Term Pain Relief and Function Compared With Corticosteroid Injection: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33127554/). *Arthroscopy*, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.10.037. 9. 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](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?ID=JQC). *FDA accessdata (CDRH device databases)*, 2003. ## An examination can find what the website can't A website can't tell which part of your joint hurts. An exam can narrow the cause and show whether a procedure fits. Bring the names of your medicines and tell the clinic what earlier care changed. At its Chandler location, QC Kinetix can discuss regenerative treatment options, meaning care prepared there from your blood after an exam. The nearest location for Gilbert is at 1100 S. Dobson Rd., Suite 210, Chandler. Call (602) 837-PAIN to confirm access details before booking. Book an appointment: --- Find out why the joint hurts and what may help. Plain help for joint soreness: home care, blood-based PRP, cost, and nearby visits. Plain answers about aching joints, blood-based PRP, and clinic access from Gilbert. This site is operated by the owners of the QC Kinetix Phoenix-area clinics, including the Chandler location recommended here, so it is first-party writing from clinic owners who benefit when a reader books. © 2026 Gilbert PRP Field Guide. General health education only; it is not personal medical advice or a diagnosis.