Alice Roffi1, Berardo Di Matteo2,3, Gopal Shankar Krishnakumar1, Elizaveta Kon1, Giuseppe Filardo4. 1. Nano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. 2. Nano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. berardo.dimatteo@gmail.com. 3. I Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. berardo.dimatteo@gmail.com. 4. Biomechanics Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of large bone defects represents a significant challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. In recent years, biologic agents have also been used to further improve bone healing. Among these, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the most exploited strategy. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the available literature to identify: 1) preclinical in-vivo results supporting the rational of PRP use for bone healing; 2) evidence from the clinical practice on the actual clinical benefit of PRP for the treatment of fractures and complications such as delayed unions and non-unions. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed on the application of PRP in bone healing, using the following inclusion criteria: pre-clinical and clinical reports of any level of evidence, written in English language, published in the last 20 years (1996-2016), on the use of PRP to stimulate long-bone defect treatment, with focus on fracture and delayed/non-unions healing. RESULTS: The search in the Pubmed database identified 64 articles eligible for inclusion: 45 were preclinical in-vivo studies and 19 were clinical studies. Despite the fact that the overall pre-clinical results seem to support the benefit of PRP in 91.1 % of the studies, a more in depth analysis underlined a lower success rate, with a positive outcome of 84.4 % in terms of histological analysis, and even lower values considering radiological and biomechanical results (75.0 % and 72.7 % positive outcome respectively). This was also mirrored in the clinical literature, where the real benefit of PRP use to treat fractures and non-unions is still under debate. CONCLUSION: Overall, the available literature presents major limitations in terms of low quality and extreme heterogeneity, which hamper the possibility to optimize PRP treatment and translate it into a real clinical benefit despite positive preclinical findings on its biological potential to favour bone healing.
PURPOSE: The treatment of large bone defects represents a significant challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. In recent years, biologic agents have also been used to further improve bone healing. Among these, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the most exploited strategy. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the available literature to identify: 1) preclinical in-vivo results supporting the rational of PRP use for bone healing; 2) evidence from the clinical practice on the actual clinical benefit of PRP for the treatment of fractures and complications such as delayed unions and non-unions. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed on the application of PRP in bone healing, using the following inclusion criteria: pre-clinical and clinical reports of any level of evidence, written in English language, published in the last 20 years (1996-2016), on the use of PRP to stimulate long-bone defect treatment, with focus on fracture and delayed/non-unions healing. RESULTS: The search in the Pubmed database identified 64 articles eligible for inclusion: 45 were preclinical in-vivo studies and 19 were clinical studies. Despite the fact that the overall pre-clinical results seem to support the benefit of PRP in 91.1 % of the studies, a more in depth analysis underlined a lower success rate, with a positive outcome of 84.4 % in terms of histological analysis, and even lower values considering radiological and biomechanical results (75.0 % and 72.7 % positive outcome respectively). This was also mirrored in the clinical literature, where the real benefit of PRP use to treat fractures and non-unions is still under debate. CONCLUSION: Overall, the available literature presents major limitations in terms of low quality and extreme heterogeneity, which hamper the possibility to optimize PRP treatment and translate it into a real clinical benefit despite positive preclinical findings on its biological potential to favour bone healing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone defect; Bone healing; Fracture; Growth factors; Non-union; PRP
Authors: Massimo Mariconda; Francesco Cozzolino; Andrea Cozzolino; Elio D'Agostino; Antonio Bove; Carlo Milano Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: T F B Souza; A L Andrade; G T N M Ferreira; G T N M Ferrreira; S S Sakamoto; V B Albuquerque; S R M Bonfim; M C R Luvizotto; M J Q Louzada Journal: Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 1.358
Authors: Habib Zahir; Bijan Dehghani; Scott Rodeo; Miguel Otero; Xiaoning Yuan; Yurii Chinenov; Christine Kim; Alissa Burge; Reyna Bandhari; Daniel Nemirov; Patrick Fava; Peter Moley; Hollis Potter; Joseph Nguyen; Brian Halpern; Laura Donlin; Lionel Ivashkiv Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.379