Efficacy of Intraoperative Platelet-Rich Plasma After Meniscal Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Muhammad Thahir, Iffath Misbah, Jagadeesh Bhaskaran, Nazmul Huda Syed, Munis Ashraf, Navin Balasubramanian
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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.

Abstract Image

半月板修复术后术中富血小板血浆的疗效:系统回顾与元分析
背景半月板损伤经常需要手术干预来恢复膝关节功能和稳定性。术中注射富血小板血浆(PRP)已成为一种潜在的辅助疗法,可促进半月板修复后的组织愈合。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估 PRP 在半月板修复术后患者疼痛缓解、功能恢复和总体成功率方面的疗效。方法采用综合搜索策略,在 Scopus、PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中查找相关研究。纳入标准包括人类研究,包括随机对照试验(RCT)、队列研究和病例对照研究,重点关注术中使用富血小板血浆(PRP)进行半月板修复,并报告与疼痛、功能和治愈率相关的结果。排除标准包括动物研究、非英语出版物、缺乏相关结果测量的研究以及数据不充分的研究。两名审稿人独立筛选标题和摘要,通过达成共识或咨询第三名审稿人来解决分歧,然后对可能符合条件的研究进行全文评估。数据提取由两名审稿人使用标准表格独立完成。观察性研究的可靠性采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。结果人口统计学分析显示,PRP 组的平均年龄为 41.39 岁,而对照组的平均年龄为 42.1 岁。在性别分布方面,PRP 组有 61 名男性和 29 名女性,而对照组有 62 名男性和 34 名女性。疼痛评分显示,PRP 更受青睐,平均差异为 4.83(P = 0.13)。然而,PRP 组和对照组之间的 Lysholm 评分(平均差异:- 0.44,p = 0.91)或 IKDC 评分(平均差异:2.80,p = 0.14)没有明显差异。同样,ROM 测量也没有显示出显著的统计学差异,平均差异为 2.80(p = 0.18)。此外,PRP 组和对照组的失败率也没有明显差异,加权平均差异为 0.71(p = 0.52)。这些研究结果表明,虽然 PRP 可以缓解疼痛,但它对半月板修复术后的功能恢复、活动范围和失败率的影响尚无定论。一些研究表明,注射 PRP 对缓解疼痛和功能恢复有潜在益处,但另一些研究则表明,与对照组相比没有明显差异。PRP疗法对总体成功率(包括再次撕裂率和翻修手术率)的影响也不确定。要提供更有力的证据并指导骨科手术的临床实践,还需要更多设计良好、样本量更大的随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
185
审稿时长
9 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信