Jonathon McRobb1, Khawaja Hasan Kamil2, Imran Ahmed3, Fatema Dhaif3, Andrew Metcalfe3. 1. Warwick Medical School, Medical School Building, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK. Jonathon.mcrobb@warwick.ac.uk. 2. Warwick Medical School, Medical School Building, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK. Hasan.kamil@warwick.ac.uk. 3. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the effect of PRP on healing (vascularization, inflammation and ligamentization) and clinical outcomes (pain, knee function and stability) in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and compare the preparation and application of PRP. METHODS: Independent systematic searches of online databases (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) were conducted following PRISMA guidelines (final search 10th July 2021). Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and risk of bias assessed using Critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) Randomised controlled trial (RCT) checklist. Independent data extraction preceded narrative analysis. RESULTS: 13 RCTs were included. The methods of PRP collection and application were varied. Significant early increases in rate of ligamentization and vascularisation were observed alongside early decreases in inflammation. No significant results were achieved in the later stages of the healing process. Significantly improved pain and knee function was found but no consensus reached. CONCLUSIONS: PRP influences healing through early vascularisation, culminating in higher rates of ligamentization. Long-term effects were not demonstrated suggesting the influence of PRP is limited. No consensus was reached on the impact of PRP on pain, knee stability and resultant knee function, providing avenues for further research. Subsequent investigations could incorporate multiple doses over time, more frequent observation and comparisons of different forms of PRP. The lack of standardisation of PRP collection and application techniques makes comparison difficult. Due to considerable heterogeneity, (I2 > 50%), a formal meta-analysis was not possible highlighting the need for further high quality RCTs to assess the effectiveness of PRP. The biasing towards young males highlights the need for a more diverse range of participants to make the study more applicable to the general population. TRAIL REGISTRATION: CRD42021242078CRD, 15th March 2021, retrospectively registered.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the effect of PRP on healing (vascularization, inflammation and ligamentization) and clinical outcomes (pain, knee function and stability) in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and compare the preparation and application of PRP. METHODS: Independent systematic searches of online databases (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) were conducted following PRISMA guidelines (final search 10th July 2021). Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and risk of bias assessed using Critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) Randomised controlled trial (RCT) checklist. Independent data extraction preceded narrative analysis. RESULTS: 13 RCTs were included. The methods of PRP collection and application were varied. Significant early increases in rate of ligamentization and vascularisation were observed alongside early decreases in inflammation. No significant results were achieved in the later stages of the healing process. Significantly improved pain and knee function was found but no consensus reached. CONCLUSIONS: PRP influences healing through early vascularisation, culminating in higher rates of ligamentization. Long-term effects were not demonstrated suggesting the influence of PRP is limited. No consensus was reached on the impact of PRP on pain, knee stability and resultant knee function, providing avenues for further research. Subsequent investigations could incorporate multiple doses over time, more frequent observation and comparisons of different forms of PRP. The lack of standardisation of PRP collection and application techniques makes comparison difficult. Due to considerable heterogeneity, (I2 > 50%), a formal meta-analysis was not possible highlighting the need for further high quality RCTs to assess the effectiveness of PRP. The biasing towards young males highlights the need for a more diverse range of participants to make the study more applicable to the general population. TRAIL REGISTRATION: CRD42021242078CRD, 15th March 2021, retrospectively registered.
Authors: Thomas L Sanders; Hilal Maradit Kremers; Andrew J Bryan; Dirk R Larson; Diane L Dahm; Bruce A Levy; Michael J Stuart; Aaron J Krych Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Adriano Marques de Almeida; Marco Kawamura Demange; Marcel Faraco Sobrado; Marcelo Bordalo Rodrigues; André Pedrinelli; Arnaldo José Hernandez Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 6.202