Daniela Vianna Pachito1,2, Ângela Maria Bagattini1,3, Adriano Marques de Almeida4, Alfredo Mendrone-Júnior5, Rachel Riera1,6. 1. Núcleo de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Instituto de Patologia Tropical e Saúde Pública, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil. 4. Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Fundação Pro Sangue Hemocentro de São Paulo e Laboratório de Processamento Celular, Hospital Sírio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Disciplina de Medicina Baseada em Evidências, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma is widely used for different types of clinical situations, but universal standardization of procedures for its preparation is still lacking. METHODS: Scoping review of comparative studies that have assessed at least two alternatives in one or more stages of preparation, storage and/or administration of PRP or its related products. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. Two authors screened references independently. Data extraction was performed iteratively, and results were presented for each included comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included after assessing full texts, focusing on the comparison of PRP to a related product, types of anticoagulants, centrifugation protocols, commercial kits, processing time, methods for activation, and application concomitantly to other substances. Only laboratory outcomes were assessed, as platelet, leukocyte and growth factor concentrations. CONCLUSION: Results showed great variability related to methods employed in different stages of PRP processing, which may explain the variability observed in clinical trials assessing the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma is widely used for different types of clinical situations, but universal standardization of procedures for its preparation is still lacking. METHODS: Scoping review of comparative studies that have assessed at least two alternatives in one or more stages of preparation, storage and/or administration of PRP or its related products. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. Two authors screened references independently. Data extraction was performed iteratively, and results were presented for each included comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included after assessing full texts, focusing on the comparison of PRP to a related product, types of anticoagulants, centrifugation protocols, commercial kits, processing time, methods for activation, and application concomitantly to other substances. Only laboratory outcomes were assessed, as platelet, leukocyte and growth factor concentrations. CONCLUSION: Results showed great variability related to methods employed in different stages of PRP processing, which may explain the variability observed in clinical trials assessing the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations.
Authors: Augustus D Mazzocca; Mary Beth R McCarthy; David M Chowaniec; Mark P Cote; Anthony A Romeo; James P Bradley; Robert A Arciero; Knut Beitzel Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ketao Wang; Zhongli Li; Ji Li; Weixiong Liao; Yuanyuan Qin; Ning Zhang; Xiulin Huo; Ning Mao; Heng Zhu Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Niall A Smyth; Christopher D Murawski; Lisa A Fortier; Brian J Cole; John G Kennedy Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Ryan P Russell; John Apostolakos; Toshiaki Hirose; Mark P Cote; Augustus D Mazzocca Journal: Sports Med Arthrosc Rev Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 1.985