Bryan M Saltzman1, Akshay Jain2, Kirk A Campbell2, Randy Mascarenhas3, Anthony A Romeo2, Nikhil N Verma2, Brian J Cole2. 1. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: bryan.m.saltzman@gmail.com. 2. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 3. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid. METHODS: Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS: Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS: The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid. METHODS: Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS: Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS: The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.