When it comes to managing joint and soft tissue pain, cortisone injections have long been a popular option. More recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has emerged as an alternative approach rooted in regenerative medicine. Both treatments are administered via injection, but they work in very different ways. For patients deciding between PRP vs cortisone injection, understanding the mechanisms, benefits and limitations of each is essential.
This article explores how PRP and cortisone differ, what each is used for, and how they compare in terms of pain relief, healing potential and long-term outcomes.
How Cortisone Injections Work
Cortisone injections are anti-inflammatory treatments commonly used to reduce pain and swelling in conditions such as:
- Osteoarthritis
- Bursitis
- Tendonitis
- Joint inflammation
Cortisone works by suppressing inflammation, which can result in relatively fast pain relief. This is especially useful in acute flare-ups of pain, such as during a bout of shoulder bursitis or knee arthritis.
However, cortisone does not repair damaged tissue or promote healing. Repeated cortisone injections over time may also carry risks, including potential weakening of tendons and cartilage, especially in weight-bearing joints.
How PRP Therapy Works
PRP therapy takes a very different approach. It uses your body’s own blood, processed to concentrate healing platelets. These platelets are then injected into the injured or painful area to potentially promote natural tissue repair.
PRP is used in conditions such as:
- PRP for rotator cuff injury
- PRP for tennis elbow
- PRP for Achilles tendinopathy
- PRP for knee pain due to osteoarthritis
Rather than simply reducing inflammation, PRP aims to stimulate the body’s own healing response by delivering growth factors directly to the affected tissue. It is a common component of regenerative medicine in Australia and is increasingly offered in orthopaedic clinics.
Comparing PRP and Cortisone: What the Research Says
Numerous PRP research studies have evaluated the effectiveness of both cortisone and PRP injections. In the short term, cortisone may provide faster symptom relief. However, in the medium to long term, PRP may lead to better functional outcomes in some conditions, particularly chronic tendon and joint injuries.
For example, studies comparing PRP vs cortisone injection for tennis elbow have shown that while cortisone may offer immediate relief, PRP tends to result in more sustained improvement over 6 to 12 months.
That said, outcomes vary significantly between individuals, and the choice often depends on the nature of the condition, its severity, and the patient’s treatment goals.
Pros and Cons
Cortisone Injections
- Pros: Quick pain relief, widely available, effective for inflammation
- Cons: Does not heal tissue, potential for side effects with repeated use, short-term solution
PRP Injections
- Pros: May promote tissue healing, uses body’s own cells, fewer long-term risks
- Cons: Slower onset of results, may require multiple sessions, variable outcomes
Which Is Right for You?
If you’re facing persistent joint or tendon pain, both PRP and cortisone have their place in orthopaedic care. Cortisone may be suitable for rapid relief of inflammation, particularly in acute flare-ups. PRP therapy, by contrast, may be a more appropriate option for long-standing injuries or degenerative conditions where healing is the goal.
Many patients consider PRP when they want to avoid the long-term risks of repeated cortisone use or are exploring natural, biologic treatment options. PRP is especially relevant in active individuals or athletes who are looking for tissue support and durability in recovery.
