| Literature DB >> 25184132 |
Pietro Randelli1, Filippo Randelli2, Vincenza Ragone2, Alessandra Menon2, Riccardo D'Ambrosi2, Davide Cucchi2, Paolo Cabitza1, Giuseppe Banfi3.
Abstract
Rotator cuff injuries are a common source of shoulder pathology and result in an important decrease in quality of patient life. Given the frequency of these injuries, as well as the relatively poor result of surgical intervention, it is not surprising that new and innovative strategies like tissue engineering have become more appealing. Tissue-engineering strategies involve the use of cells and/or bioactive factors to promote tendon regeneration via natural processes. The ability of numerous growth factors to affect tendon healing has been extensively analyzed in vitro and in animal models, showing promising results. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a whole blood fraction which contains several growth factors. Controlled clinical studies using different autologous PRP formulations have provided controversial results. However, favourable structural healing rates have been observed for surgical repair of small and medium rotator cuff tears. Cell-based approaches have also been suggested to enhance tendon healing. Bone marrow is a well known source of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Recently, ex vivo human studies have isolated and cultured distinct populations of MSCs from rotator cuff tendons, long head of the biceps tendon, subacromial bursa, and glenohumeral synovia. Stem cells therapies represent a novel frontier in the management of rotator cuff disease that required further basic and clinical research.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25184132 PMCID: PMC4145545 DOI: 10.1155/2014/129515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Controlled clinical studies investigating the use of PRP in rotator cuff lesions.
| Surgical use of PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Evidence | PRP formulation | Surgical technique | Number of patients | Comments |
| Randelli et al. | Level 1 | Injectable PRP | Single row | 53 | Better clinical outcomes at 3 mo; better clinical outcomes at 12, 24 months for smaller tears with PRP |
| Ruiz-Moneo et al. | Level 1 | Injectable PRP | Double row | 63 | No differences in rotator cuff healing or function at 1 year |
|
Antuña et al. | Level 2 | Injectable PRP | Single row | 28 | No differences in clinical outcomes and healing rate at 2 years |
| Charousset et al. | Level 3 | Injectable PRP | Double row | 70 | No differences in cuff healing or function at 2 years |
| Gumina et al. | Level 1 | Suturable PRP | Single row | 76 | Lower retear in the PRP group; no differences for clinical outcomes |
| Jo et al. | Level 2 | Suturable PRP | Transosseous equivalent | 42 | Trend for lower re-tearing in the PRP group; no differences for recovery and function |
| Jo et al. | Level 1 | Suturable PRP | Transosseous equivalent | 48 | Lower retear and function at 1 year in the PRP group |
| Zumstein et al. | Level 1 | Suturable PRP | Transosseous equivalent | 20 | Increased vascularization for cuff tears with PRP |
| Castricini et al. | Level 1 | Suturable PRP | Double row | 88 | No difference for clinical outcomes at 16 months; better restoration of footprint in PRP group |
| Rodeo et al. | Level 2 | Suturable PRP | Single OR double row/transosseous equivalent | 67 | No difference in tendon healing, tendon vascularity, and clinical scores at 1 year |
| Barber et al. | Level 3 | Suturable PRP | Single row | 40 | Lower retear in the PRP group; better healing for smaller tears with PRP |
| Bergeson et al. | Level 3 | Suturable PRP | Single or double row | 37 | Higher retear rate in patients with at-risk rotator cuff tears with PRFM; no difference in functional outcome scores |
| Weber et al. | Level 1 | Suturable PRP | Single row | 60 | No difference in perioperative morbidity, clinical outcomes, or structural integrity |
|
| |||||
| PRP injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy | |||||
| Author | Evidence | PRP intervention | Control intervention | Number of patients | Comments |
|
| |||||
| Rha et al. | Level 1 | 2 PRP (3 mL) injections at a 4-week interval | 2 dry needling procedures at a 4-week interval | 39 | PRP was superior with respect to pain, function, and range of motion over a 6-month period |
| Kesikburun et al. | Level 1 | 1 injection of PRP (5 mL) | 1 injection of saline solution (5 mL) | 40 | No difference for quality of life, pain, disability, and range of motion at 1 year |