Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the short-term effectiveness of corticosteroids, 5% dextrose(D5W), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). DATA SOURCES Four databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science (WOS)) were researched from inception to the 1st of April 2022. STUDY SELECTION Two authors independently screened the literature to identify the RCTs meeting the included criteria, which involved comparing corticosteroid, 5% dextrose water (D5W), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection with each other or placebo-controlled for treating CTS. DATA EXTRACTION The two reviewers independently conducted information extraction, the outcomes included were the changes in Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Function Status Scale (FSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at short-term follow-up after drug injection treatment and any adverse events reported. DATA SYNTHESIS Twelve randomized controlled trials with 749patients (817 hands) were included. The results of this study suggested that PRP injection was the most likely to relieve symptoms, improve functions and alleviate pain, with the SUCRA being 91.5%, 92.7%, and 80.8%, respectively, followed by D5W injection (74.4%, 72.2%, 72.1%), and corticosteroid injection (33.7%, 31.9%, 46.2%). The injection of three drugs was significantly better than that of a placebo. CONCLUSION From the results of the network meta-analysis, PRP injection is the most recommended treatment among the injection of corticosteroid, D5W, and PRP. The protocol of this network meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022325228.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. PURPOSE To systematically compare the pain relief, functional improvement and successful rates on treatment of two different types of PRP, by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection. METHODS The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from inception to August 2021 by terms of lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP. PRP involved in present study were divided into leukocyte-poor PRP and leukocyte-rich PRP groups according to different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included characteristics of the subjects, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, successful rate and safety of treatment of short-term and long-term follow-up. RESULTS A total of 33 studies included 2420 LE patients. There were 19 studies with LP-PRP, 13 studies with LR-PRP and 1 study involved both LP-PRP and LR-PRP. Patients had significant improved clinical outcomes post-treatment compared to pre-treatment in both groups of PRP. The mean of VAS was ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before the treatment, 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term and 0.6 to 3.3 at the long-term follow-up in LR-PRP group. The mean of VAS was ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before the treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term and 0.7 to 2.7 in the long-term follow-up in LP-PRP group. The DASH score of LR-PRP and LP-PRP were ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7 separately before the treatment and 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0 separately at long-term follow-up. LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups reflected successful rate ranged from 70%-100% and 36%-100% respectively. The complication rate lower in LP-PRP group (3.9%) than LR-PRP group (6.4%), with the major complication was temporary pain after PRP treatment (P = 0.029). CONCLUSION PRP treatment demonstrated a significant improvement with pain relief and functional improvement on lateral epicondylitis regardless types of PRP. There was no significant difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in pain relief and functional improvement. The major complication was temporary pain after PRP injection and the complication rate in LP-PRP was lower than LR-PRP.

Abstract

PURPOSE Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) represents a highly profitable biological therapy. Platelet-rich plasma is widely used to treat musculoskeletal disorders despite mixed evidence of its efficacy. As evidenced by literature from other domains, industry funding may influence the results of clinical trials. The objective of the current study was to determine the association between industry funding and positive results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS A search of four databases was conducted. Included studies were RCTs comparing PRP to any non-PRP comparator in adults (18 years old or over) with musculoskeletal disorders and had full text available in English. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2016 or were non-human trials. A multivariate binomial logistic regression model was created to explore predictors of statistically significant findings. Covariates included the presence of industry funding, sample size, and length of study follow-up. 1440 records were screened with 87 trials included in the final analysis. RESULTS Of the 87 studies, 61 (70%) reported a statistically significant primary outcome. The presence of industry funding was not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome [OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.096-1.36, (n.s.)]. Studies that did not state whether industry funding was present had a higher chance of reporting a statistically significant primary outcome (OR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.1-11.9, p = 0.035). Sample size and length of follow-up were not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome. CONCLUSION The results of the current study conclude that industry funding had no impact on the reporting of positive results for RCTs investigating PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. However, not disclosing sources of funding was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting positive results. The results of trials that fail to disclose funding sources should be interpreted with caution in the PRP literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is known to exert multi-directional biological effects favouring tendon healing. However, conclusions drawn by numerous studies on its clinical efficacy for acute Achilles tendon rupture are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this and to compare to those without PRP treatment. METHODS The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Pubmed, Medline and Embase were used and assessed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: ('plasma' OR 'platelet-rich' OR 'platelet-rich plasma' or 'PRP') AND ('Achilles tendon rupture/tear' OR 'calcaneal tendon rupture/tear' OR 'tendo calcaneus rupture/tear'). Data pertaining to biomechanical outcomes (heel endurance test, isokinetic strength, calf-circumference and range of motion), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and incidence of re-ruptures were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed for same outcomes measured in at least three studies. Pooled outcome data were analysed by random- and fixed-effects models. RESULTS After abstract and full-text screening, 6 studies were included. In total there were 510 patients of which 256 had local PRP injection and 254 without. The average age was 41.6 years, mean time from injury to treatment 5.9 days and mean follow-up at 61 weeks. Biomechanically, there was similar heel endurance, isokinetic strength, calf circumference and range of motion between both groups. In general, there were no differences in patient reported outcomes from all scoring systems used in the studies. Both groups returned to their pre-injured level at a similar time and there were no differences on the incidence of re-rupture (OR 1.13, 95% CI, 0.46-2.80, p = 0.79). CONCLUSION PRP injections for acute Achilles tendon ruptures do not improve medium to long-term biomechanical and clinical outcomes. However, future studies incorporating the ideal application and biological composition of PRP are required to investigate its true clinical efficacy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Frozen shoulder (FS) is characterized by progressive shoulder pain and a limited range of motion. Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection is a newly developed treatment option for patients with FS and its efficacy needs to be examined. OBJECTIVE By conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, this study attempted to evaluate the efficacy of PRP injection in the treatment of patients with FS. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Elsevier, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched up to May 31, 2020. This study included randomized controlled trials as well as prospective cohort studies. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract and full text in order to extract data from qualified studies. The main outcome was pain visual analogue score (VAS) while the secondary outcome was range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder joint that consists of four parts: internal rotation, flexion, external rotation and abduction. RESULTES Three randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort study met the inclusion criteria. Accordingly, a total of 359 cases were analyzed and followed up to 3 months. The control group included corticosteroids (CS), ultrasound therapy, and stellate ganglion block. Compared to other groups, VAS was statistically significant after 1 month and 3 months of treatment (SMD: -0.46, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.18, P= 0.002; I=2 43.2%), (SMD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.50, P= 0.00, I=2 61.9%). Compared to the control group, only flexion of the patients treated with PRP demonstrated no significant improvement at 1 month, whereas internal rotation, flexion, external rotation and abduction of the shoulder were found to be improved following 3 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS The corresponding findings illustrate that compared to other non-operative treatments, local injection of PRP can effectively improve pain and shoulder motion in patients with FS. However, due to the short follow-up time and limitations regarding the quantity and quality of studies, the above conclusions require further elucidation by performing additional high-quality studies.

Abstract

PURPOSE To assess the clinical evidence defining the optimal combination of arthroscopic suture technique and Platelet-Rich Products (PRP) application for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS All level of evidence (LOE) I randomized controlled trials (RCT) focusing arthroscopic suture technique and/or PRP application in ARCR were included. The exclusion criteria were: LOE II or worse; Studies with other interventions; Studies reported none of predetermined clinical outcomes; Studies unable to extract any precise data; Studies from the same patient group of included studies. A pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian network analysis were performed on each comparison. The intervention options were ranked by Bayesian network analysis. RESULTS 27 studies comprising 1, 947 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The application of transosseous equivalent/suture bridge repair (SB) with PRP (SB+PRP) significantly reduced retear rate (Risk Ratio [RR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], [0.15, 0.55].) and increased Constant score (Mean Difference, 1.90; 95% CI, [0.14, 3.74].), compared to SB repair. Single-row repair (SR) with PRP usage (SR+PRP) significantly reduced retear rate (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, [0.12, 0.55].) and pain visual analog scale (VAS) (Mean Difference, -0.84; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.46].), increased University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score (Mean Difference, 1.48; 95% CI [0.50, 2.58].) and Constant score (Mean Difference, 4.53; 95% CI [2.65, 6.38].), compared to SR repair. The ranking for outcomes demonstrated SB+PRP resulted in the best retear rate, UCLA shoulder score, with the second-best postoperative pain, Constant score, while SR+PRP resulted in the best postoperative pain, Constant score, with the second-best retear rate and UCLA score. CONCLUSION Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair utilizing SB+PRP yields optimal retear rate and UCLA shoulder score, with the second-best postoperative pain and Constant shoulder outcome score, while SR+PRP yields the best in these two parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I, Bayesian network analysis of level I RCT.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trial (RCT) outcomes reaching statistical significance, frequently determined by P <.05, are often used to guide decision making. Noted lack of reproducibility of some RCTs has brought special attention to the limitations of this approach. In this meta-analysis, we assessed the robustness of RCTs evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of chronic noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy (AT) by using fragility indices. METHODS The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing outcomes after PRP injection vs alternative treatment in patients with AT. Representative data sets were generated for each reported continuous outcome event using summary statistics. Fragility indices refer to the minimal number of patients whose status would have to change from a nonevent to an event to turn a statistically significant result into a nonsignificant result, or vice versa. The fragility index (FI) and continuous FI (CFI) were determined for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, by manipulating each data set until reversal of significance (a=0.05) was achieved. The corresponding fragility quotient (FQ) and continuous FQ (CFQ) were calculated by dividing FI/CFI by sample size. RESULTS Of 432 studies screened, 8 studies (52 outcome events) were included in this analysis. The 12 dichotomous outcomes had a median FI of 4.5 (FQ: 0.111), and the 40 continuous outcomes had a median CFI of 5 (CFQ: 0.154). All 52 outcome events included lost-to-follow-up data, and 12 (23.1%) indicated a greater number of patients lost to follow-up than the FI or CFI. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that RCTs evaluating PRP for AT therapy lack statistical robustness, because changing only a small number of events may alter outcome significance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, therapeutic study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Some studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) improves androgenetic alopecia (AGA)-while others do not. We determined whether the placebo effect significantly varies between split-scalp and whole-head trials on PRP monotherapy for AGA. Our rationale was based on the plausibility of PRP diffusing to the control (i.e., 'placebo') side of split-scalp trials. This is not possible in whole head studies. METHODS We systematically searched the literature for available data. Our choice of analyses and outcomes were determined by the available data. RESULTS Our endpoint was change in total hair density six months after baseline. Our regression showed that total hair density after six months was significantly (p<0.05) higher in the placebo arm of split-scalp trials, compared to whole-head studies, by 37 hairs/cm(2) . Our one-arm meta-analyses showed that the pooled change in total hair density between the PRP side and placebo side in split scalp studies was -3 hairs/cm(2) (p=0.37), that is, a slight decrease in hair density in the placebo side of the scalp. For whole head stdies the corresponding difference in total hair density between patients receiving PRP and those on placebo was -30 hairs/cm(2) (p=0.000017), that is, a much larger decrease in hair density. Patients in the placebo group in whole-head trials lost significantly more hair than in the placebo side of the split-head trials where hair loss was comparatively reduced-presumably because of PRP diffusing from the treatment side of the scalp. CONCLUSIONS The association between design (i.e., split-scalp vs. whole-head) and outcome, in placebo arms of AGA trials on PRP monotherapy, had never been reported. This 'design effect' could partly reconcile the incongruent conclusions across the PRP literature for AGA; furthermore, clinical guidelines can consider 'design effect' when selecting evidence to base care practices on.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Chronic wounds place a heavy burden on the healthcare system due to the prolonged, continuous need for human resources for wound management. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma on the treatment of chronic wounds. METHODS The systematic literature search was performed in four databases. Randomized clinical trials reporting on patients with chronic wounds treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) were included, comparing PRP with conventional ulcer therapy. We pooled the data using the random effects model. Our primary outcome was the change in wound size. RESULTS Our systematic search provided 2688 articles, and we identified 48 eligible studies after the selection and citation search. Thirty-three study groups of 29 RCTs with a total of 2198 wounds showed that the odds for complete closure were significantly higher in the PRP group than in the control group (OR = 5.32; CI: 3.37; 8.40; I(2) = 58%). CONCLUSIONS PRP is a safe and effective modality to enhance wound healing. By implementing it in clinical practice, platelet-rich plasma could become a widely used, valuable tool as it could not only improve patients' quality of life but also decrease the healthcare burden of wound management.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic autoimmune condition that can lead to a serious deterioration in patients' quality of life. The first line of treatment in patchy AA is triamcinolone acetonide (TrA); however, the efficacy of the treatment varies greatly. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of AA. METHOD We performed a systematic literature search in four databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) reporting on patients with AA treated with PRP were included, comparing PRP with TrA or a placebo. The primary outcome was the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. RESULTS Our systematic search provided a total of 2747 articles. We identified four studies eligible for quantitative analysis. The pooled mean differences from the four studies did not exhibit a significant difference in the mean change in the SALT score when PRP and TrA groups were compared (MD =-2.04, CI: -4.72-0.65; I(2) = 80.4%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS PRP is a promising topical, steroid-free treatment modality in the therapy of AA. No significant difference was found between PRP and TrA treatment; however, further high-quality RCTs are needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP treatment and strengthen the quality of evidence.