Cargando…

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation does not result in more favourable outcomes in arthroscopic meniscal repair: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP. METHODS: The present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Migliorini, Filippo, Cuozzo, Francesco, Cipollaro, Lucio, Oliva, Francesco, Hildebrand, Frank, Maffulli, Nicola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8821738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35129728
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00630-1
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP. METHODS: The present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase were accessed in August 2021. All the clinical trials which compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP were included. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were included: 38% (318 of 837 patients) were women; the mean age of the patients was 35.6 (range, 20.8–64.3) years; the mean follow-up was 26.2 (range, 6–54) months. Similarity was found in analogue scale (VAS) (P = 0.5) and Lysholm (P = 0.9), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (P = 0.9). Similarity was found in the rate of failure (P = 0.4) and rate of revision (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The current published scientific evidence does not support PRP augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair.