PURPOSE: Despite the theoretic basis and interest in using platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to improve the potential for rotator cuff healing, there remains ongoing controversy regarding its clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the available evidence to compare the efficacy of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears who were concomitantly treated with PRP. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PubMed for eligible studies. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed using a random effects model to arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect with associated 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Five studies (2 randomized and 3 nonrandomized with comparative control groups) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 261 patients. Methodologic quality was uniformly sound as assessed by the Detsky scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quantitative synthesis of all 5 studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of rotator cuff retear between patients treated with PRP and those treated without PRP (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.23). There were also no differences in the pooled Constant score; Simple Shoulder Test score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score; or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. CONCLUSIONS: PRP does not have an effect on overall retear rates or shoulder-specific outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Additional well-designed randomized trials are needed to corroborate these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and III studies.
PURPOSE: Despite the theoretic basis and interest in using platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to improve the potential for rotator cuff healing, there remains ongoing controversy regarding its clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the available evidence to compare the efficacy of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears who were concomitantly treated with PRP. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PubMed for eligible studies. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed using a random effects model to arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect with associated 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Five studies (2 randomized and 3 nonrandomized with comparative control groups) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 261 patients. Methodologic quality was uniformly sound as assessed by the Detsky scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quantitative synthesis of all 5 studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of rotator cuff retear between patients treated with PRP and those treated without PRP (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.23). There were also no differences in the pooled Constant score; Simple Shoulder Test score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score; or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. CONCLUSIONS: PRP does not have an effect on overall retear rates or shoulder-specific outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Additional well-designed randomized trials are needed to corroborate these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and III studies.
Authors: Olaf Lorbach; Mike H Baums; Tanja Kostuj; Stephan Pauly; Markus Scheibel; Andrew Carr; Nasim Zargar; Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Taralyn M McCarrel; Nathan A Mall; Andrew S Lee; Brian J Cole; Davietta C Butty; Lisa A Fortier Journal: Sports Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Pietro Randelli; Davide Cucchi; Vincenza Ragone; Laura de Girolamo; Paolo Cabitza; Mario Randelli Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Alberto Tagliafico; Giuseppe Russo; Sara Boccalini; Johan Michaud; Andrea Klauser; Giovanni Serafini; Carlo Martinoli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Matthias V Wlk; Ashraf Abdelkafy; Michael Hexel; Christian Krasny; Nicolas Aigner; Roland Meizer; Franz Landsiedl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.342