{"title":"Efficacy of Intraoperative Platelet-Rich Plasma After Meniscal Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Muhammad Thahir, Iffath Misbah, Jagadeesh Bhaskaran, Nazmul Huda Syed, Munis Ashraf, Navin Balasubramanian","doi":"10.1007/s43465-024-01155-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Meniscal injuries frequently require surgical intervention to restore knee joint function and stability. Intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy to enhance tissue healing post-meniscal repair. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PRP in terms of pain relief, functional recovery, and overall success rates in patients undergoing meniscal repair procedures<b>.</b></p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies across Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed human studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, and case–control studies, focusing on intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use post-meniscal repair and reporting outcomes related to pain, functionality, and cure rates. Exclusion criteria comprised animal studies, non-English publications, studies lacking relevant outcome measures, and those with insufficient data. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, resolving disagreements through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer, followed by a full-text assessment for potentially eligible studies. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. The reliability of observational studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analyses and pooled effect estimates for main outcomes were computed using RevMan 5.3, a meta-analysis tool.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The demographic analysis revealed that the PRP group had an average age of 41.39 years, while the control group had an average age of 42.1 years. In terms of gender distribution, the PRP group consisted of 61 men and 29 women, while the control group had 62 men and 34 women. Pain ratings showed a preference for PRP with a mean difference of 4.83 (<i>p</i> = 0.13). However, there was no significant difference in Lysholm scores (mean difference: − 0.44, p = 0.91) or IKDC scores (mean difference: 2.80, <i>p</i> = 0.14) between the PRP and control groups. Similarly, ROM measures did not show a statistically significant difference, with a mean difference of 2.80 (<i>p</i> = 0.18). Additionally, there was no significant distinction in failure rates between the PRP and control groups, as indicated by a weighted mean difference of 0.71 (<i>p</i> = 0.52). These findings suggest that while PRP may offer some benefits in pain relief, its impact on functional recovery, range of motion, and failure rates following meniscal repair procedures is inconclusive.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>The current evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection on patients undergoing meniscal repair remains inconclusive. While some studies suggest potential benefits in terms of pain relief and functional recovery, others show no significant differences compared to control groups. The impact of PRP therapy on overall success rates, including rates of re-tear and revision surgery, is also uncertain. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice in orthopedic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":13338,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-024-01155-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Meniscal injuries frequently require surgical intervention to restore knee joint function and stability. Intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy to enhance tissue healing post-meniscal repair. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PRP in terms of pain relief, functional recovery, and overall success rates in patients undergoing meniscal repair procedures.
Methods
A comprehensive search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies across Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed human studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, and case–control studies, focusing on intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use post-meniscal repair and reporting outcomes related to pain, functionality, and cure rates. Exclusion criteria comprised animal studies, non-English publications, studies lacking relevant outcome measures, and those with insufficient data. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, resolving disagreements through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer, followed by a full-text assessment for potentially eligible studies. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. The reliability of observational studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analyses and pooled effect estimates for main outcomes were computed using RevMan 5.3, a meta-analysis tool.
Results
The demographic analysis revealed that the PRP group had an average age of 41.39 years, while the control group had an average age of 42.1 years. In terms of gender distribution, the PRP group consisted of 61 men and 29 women, while the control group had 62 men and 34 women. Pain ratings showed a preference for PRP with a mean difference of 4.83 (p = 0.13). However, there was no significant difference in Lysholm scores (mean difference: − 0.44, p = 0.91) or IKDC scores (mean difference: 2.80, p = 0.14) between the PRP and control groups. Similarly, ROM measures did not show a statistically significant difference, with a mean difference of 2.80 (p = 0.18). Additionally, there was no significant distinction in failure rates between the PRP and control groups, as indicated by a weighted mean difference of 0.71 (p = 0.52). These findings suggest that while PRP may offer some benefits in pain relief, its impact on functional recovery, range of motion, and failure rates following meniscal repair procedures is inconclusive.
Conclusion
The current evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection on patients undergoing meniscal repair remains inconclusive. While some studies suggest potential benefits in terms of pain relief and functional recovery, others show no significant differences compared to control groups. The impact of PRP therapy on overall success rates, including rates of re-tear and revision surgery, is also uncertain. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice in orthopedic surgery.
期刊介绍:
IJO welcomes articles that contribute to Orthopaedic knowledge from India and overseas. We publish articles dealing with clinical orthopaedics and basic research in orthopaedic surgery. Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. Previously published articles, articles which are in peer-reviewed electronic publications in other journals, are not accepted by the Journal. Published articles and illustrations become the property of the Journal. The copyright remains with the journal. Studies must be carried out in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.