When facing a musculoskeletal injury or chronic joint pain, patients are often presented with a wide range of treatment options. From rest and physiotherapy to injections or surgery, the path to healing can feel overwhelming. In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has emerged as a regenerative medicine approach that aims to support the body’s natural healing response. But how does it compare to traditional treatments? And when might it be the right fit?
In this article, we explore PRP vs. traditional treatments to help you understand the potential benefits, limitations and considerations when planning your orthopaedic recovery.
What Is PRP Therapy?
PRP therapy involves drawing a small amount of your own blood, processing it in a centrifuge to isolate a concentration of platelets, and injecting this platelet-rich plasma into the area of injury. Platelets are naturally rich in growth factors that can assist tissue repair by supporting cell recruitment, collagen production, and inflammation modulation.
PRP treatment is most commonly used for tendon, ligament and joint-related conditions and is typically performed as an outpatient procedure. It is part of a broader trend in regenerative medicine in Australia, focusing on stimulating natural healing processes rather than simply masking symptoms.
What Are Traditional Treatments in Orthopaedics?
Traditional orthopaedic treatments vary depending on the injury or condition but may include:
- RICE: rest, ice, compression, elevation for acute injuries
- Physiotherapy to restore mobility, strength and joint function
- Bracing or supportive devices
- Injections (including corticosteroids)
- Surgery for severe cases such as ligament ruptures or degenerative joint disease
These approaches are evidence-based and often effective, but they may carry risks, require longer recovery, or not address underlying tissue quality in chronic cases.
Comparing PRP and Traditional Treatments
Here’s how PRP compares with common traditional therapies:
- Healing Approach
Traditional treatments often manage symptoms or stabilise the injury site. PRP aims to activate the body’s repair mechanisms by delivering concentrated growth factors directly to damaged tissue. - Invasiveness
PRP therapy is minimally invasive and performed in a clinic setting. Surgery, on the other hand, involves greater risk, cost and downtime. - Recovery Time
Recovery from PRP treatment is typically shorter than surgical recovery. However, results may be gradual and require commitment to rehabilitation for best outcomes. - Repeatability
PRP can be repeated if needed. While some traditional treatments (like bracing) are temporary, others (like surgery) are irreversible. - Risk Profile
PRP uses your own blood, which reduces the risk of reaction or infection. However, mild discomfort or post-injection soreness is not uncommon. Traditional treatments may carry medication-related side effects or surgical complications.
Which Conditions Are Being Treated With PRP?
PRP is being explored as a treatment for a range of orthopaedic injuries, including:
- PRP for tennis elbow
- PRP for rotator cuff injury
- PRP for Achilles tendinopathy
- PRP for ligament tear in the knee or ankle
- PRP for knee arthritis
- PRP for shoulder tendonitis
- PRP for plantar fasciitis
- PRP for muscle strain and chronic joint pain
While not a replacement for surgery in all cases, PRP may be a useful intermediate option for patients who have not improved with conservative care.
PRP vs Cortisone Injections
Patients often ask how PRP compares with cortisone injections. Cortisone may quickly reduce inflammation and pain, but its effects are temporary and repeated use may affect tissue quality. PRP, in contrast, is intended to support longer-term healing by stimulating cellular repair. The best choice depends on your goals, timing, and underlying condition.
To read more on this, you may also be interested in our dedicated article on PRP vs. cortisone injections.
What the Research Says
While PRP therapy has shown potential in studies on tendon healing and joint pain, results are still variable. Systematic reviews highlight mixed findings depending on the condition, treatment protocol, and patient factors. Research is ongoing, and patients are encouraged to discuss available evidence with a medical professional.
