Daniela Vianna Pachito1,2, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca3, Rachel Riera1,3. 1. Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Núcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Disciplina de Economia e Gestão da Saúde, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Evidence Based Health Program, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a blood component therapy with a supraphysiological concentration of platelets derived from allogenic or, more commonly, autologous blood. PRP has been used in different non-transfusion indications because of its role in the promotion of tissue repair and healing, in fields such as Traumatology, Dermatology and Dentistry. OBJECTIVE: To provide a synthesis of the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS in July 2018 to identify systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) focusing on PRP for non-transfusion use. Two authors independently screened all retrieved references in two stages (titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts at a second stage). The methodological quality of SRs that met the eligibility criteria was appraised by AMSTAR 2. Conclusions were based on the most recent SRs with highest quality. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and forty references were retrieved. After checking the inclusion criteria, 29 SRs of RCTs related to three different fields (wound care, Orthopedics and Dentistry) were included. The results suggest the benefit of PRP for different clinical situations, such as diabetic wounds, acute lesions of musculoskeletal system, rotator cuff lesions, tendinopathies, knee and hip osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, allogenic bone graft for dental implants and periodontal intrabony defects. CONCLUSION: There is low to moderate quality evidence supporting the efficacy of PRP for specific clinical situations. The low quality of the evidence limits the certainty of these findings. Well-planned and well-conducted RCTs are still needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a blood component therapy with a supraphysiological concentration of platelets derived from allogenic or, more commonly, autologous blood. PRP has been used in different non-transfusion indications because of its role in the promotion of tissue repair and healing, in fields such as Traumatology, Dermatology and Dentistry. OBJECTIVE: To provide a synthesis of the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS in July 2018 to identify systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) focusing on PRP for non-transfusion use. Two authors independently screened all retrieved references in two stages (titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts at a second stage). The methodological quality of SRs that met the eligibility criteria was appraised by AMSTAR 2. Conclusions were based on the most recent SRs with highest quality. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and forty references were retrieved. After checking the inclusion criteria, 29 SRs of RCTs related to three different fields (wound care, Orthopedics and Dentistry) were included. The results suggest the benefit of PRP for different clinical situations, such as diabetic wounds, acute lesions of musculoskeletal system, rotator cuff lesions, tendinopathies, knee and hip osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, allogenic bone graft for dental implants and periodontal intrabony defects. CONCLUSION: There is low to moderate quality evidence supporting the efficacy of PRP for specific clinical situations. The low quality of the evidence limits the certainty of these findings. Well-planned and well-conducted RCTs are still needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP.
Authors: Philipp Moog; Katharina Kirchhoff; Sanjar Bekeran; Anna-Theresa Bauer; Sarah von Isenburg; Ulf Dornseifer; Hans-Günther Machens; Arndt F Schilling; Ektoras Hadjipanayi Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2020-01-16
Authors: Domen Vozel; Darja Božič; Marko Jeran; Zala Jan; Manca Pajnič; Ljubiša Pađen; Nejc Steiner; Veronika Kralj-Iglič; Saba Battelino Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2021-07-07