Fat enhanced leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin versus fascia lata in endoscopic reconstruction of CSF leaks
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2023
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to use a new biological active fat enhanced leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin membrane (L-PRF) for skull base defect reconstruction and compare its validity and reliability with the time-honored fascia lata. METHODS This prospective study was conducted on 48 patients with spontaneous CSF leaks who were divided into 2 matched groups by stratified randomization, 24 patients in each group. In group A we performed multilayer repair using fat enhanced L-PRF membrane. In group B we used fascia lata for the multilayer repair. In both groups we enforced the repair with mucosal grafts/flaps. RESULTS The two groups were statistically matched for age, sex, intracranial pressure, and site and size of the skull base defect. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the outcome of the repair or recurrence of CSF leak during the first postoperative year. Meningitis occurred in one patient in group B and was successfully treated. Another patient in group B developed thigh hematoma which resolved spontaneously. CONCLUSION The fat enhanced L-PRF membrane is a valid reliable option in repair of CSF leaks. The membrane is autologous, readily available, easily prepared, and has the advange of including stromal fat, stromal vascular fraction (SVF), and leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). The present study showed that fat enhanced L-PRF membrane is stable, non-absorbable, not liable to shrink or become necrotic, and can establish good seal of the skull base defect and further enhance the healing process. The use of the membrane also has the advantage of avoiding thigh incision and possible hematoma formation.
A randomized trial of the effects of platelet- rich plasma on postoperative complications after meningomyelocele sac repair
European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. 2023;27(12):5552-5558
OBJECTIVE Meningomyelocele is a common congenital neural tube defect. To reduce complications, we need early surgery and a multidisciplinary approach. In this study, we administered platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to babies with meningomyelocele following corrective surgery to minimize cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and accelerate the healing of the immature pouch tissue. We compared these with a control group that did not receive PRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS Of the 40 babies who had surgery with the diagnosis of meningomyelocele, 20 patients received PRP after surgical repair, and 20 were followed up without PRP. In the PRP group, 10 of the 20 patients underwent primary defect repair, the other 10 underwent flap repair. In the group that did not receive PRP, primary closure was performed in 14 patients and flap closure in six. RESULTS In the PRP group, CSF leakage occurred in one (5%) patient, and none developed meningitis. Partial skin necrosis occurred in three (15%) patients and wound dehiscence in three (15%) patients. In the group that did not receive PRP, CSF leakage occurred in nine (45%) patients, meningitis in seven (35%), partial skin necrosis in 13 (65%), and wound dehiscence in seven (35%) patients. The rate of CSF leakage and skin necrosis in the PRP group was significantly (p<0.05) lower than that in the PRP group. Furthermore, wound closure and healing were also improved in the PRP group. CONCLUSIONS We have shown that PRP treatment of postoperative meningomyelocele infants facilitates healing and lowers the risk of CSF leakage, meningitis, and skin necrosis.
The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma applicated in spinal fusion surgery: A meta-analysis
Frontiers in surgery. 2022;9:924753
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of the application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in spinal fusion surgery on the fusion rate of the spine. METHODS A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct databases was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of PRP in spinal fusion. Data on final fusion rate, changes in the visual analog scale (VAS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time was collected from the eligible studies for meta-analysis. Patients were divided into PRP and non-PRP groups according to whether PRP was used during the spinal fusion procedure. RESULTS According to the selection criteria, 4 randomized controlled trials and 8 cohort studies with 833 patients and 918 levels were included. The outcomes indicated that PRP application is associated with a lower fusion rat (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: (0.43, 0.89), P = 0.009) at final follow-up (>24 months). Subgroup analysis showed a lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group compared to the non-PRP group (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.58), P < 0.001) when spinal fusion was assessed using only anterior-posterior radiographs. When the bone graft material was a combination of autologous bone + artificial bone, the spinal fusion rate was lower in the PRP group than in the non-PRP group (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.71), P = 0.004). The PRP and non-PRP groups showed no significant differences in VAS changes at the 24th postoperative month (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI: (-0.37, 1.09), P = 0.33); Application of PRP does not reduce the estimated blood loss (WMD = -86.03, 95% CI: (-188.23, 16.17), P = 0.10). In terms of operation time, using PRP does not prolong operation time (WMD = -3.74, 95% CI: (-20.53, 13.04), P = 0.66). CONCLUSION Compared with bone graft fusion alone, PRP cannot increase the rate of spinal fusion. Inappropriate methods of spinal fusion assessment or mixing PRP with artificial/allograft bone may have been responsible for the lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION doi: 10.37766/inplasy2022.5.0055.
A novel full endoscopic annular repair technique combined with autologous conditioned plasma intradiscal injection: a new safe serial therapeutic model for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation
Annals of palliative medicine. 2021
BACKGROUND Recurrent intervertebral disc herniation and an exacerbated degenerative process have been identified as the most important factors contributing to persistent pain and disability after surgical discectomy. Defects in the annulus fibrosus remain a surgical challenge, as the preference for minimally invasive surgical approaches for lumbar microdiscectomy, surgical access, and the specifics of anatomy. limit the types of devices that permit annulus fibrosus repair. Furthermore, the intervertebral disc is a relatively avascular structure, and surgical procedures can accelerate the degenerative disc process. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of a novel microdiscectomy annular repair technique combined with an autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) intradiscal injection for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS From July 2017 to December 2018 this study recruited 75 patients with LDH (single segment) and randomly divided these patients into the following three groups: group A, full endoscopic discectomy; group B: full endoscopic discectomy and annular repair; group C, full endoscopic discectomy annular repair and ACP intradiscal injection. The pre- and postoperative neurological function and pain status were evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) score and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Patients were followed up once preoperatively, and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS The procedure was successfully performed in all cases. No cases required conversion to an open procedure. The preoperative symptoms were alleviated significantly after surgery. The VAS scores for lower back and lower limb pain and ODI score were significantly difference at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months post operation compared to pre-operation scores (P<0.05). For VAS scores of the lower back, the difference between group A and group C was statistically significant (A>C), as was the difference between group B and group C (B>C). CONCLUSIONS Early results showed that the use of the novel full endoscopic annular repair technique and ACP intradiscal injection serial therapeutic model are beneficial for short term outcomes and demonstrates a reduction in symptomatic disc reherniation with low postoperative complication rates. This new serial therapeutic model may significantly improve the symptoms of postoperative lower back pain.
Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Lumbar Spondylosis and Sacroiliac Arthropathy: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.
Is Platelet-Rich Plasma Effective in Enhancing Spinal Fusion? Systematic Overview of Overlapping Meta-Analyses
Global spine journal. 2021;:2192568220988278
STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVES We performed this systematic overview on overlapping meta-analyses that analyzed the role of platelet-rich plasma(PRP) in enhancing spinal fusion and identify which study provides the current best evidence on the topic and generate recommendations for the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects till October-2020 for meta-analyses that analyzed the role of PRP in spinal fusion procedures. Methodological quality assessment was made using Oxford Levels of Evidence, AMSTAR scoring, and AMSTAR 2 grades. We then utilized the Jadad decision algorithm to identify the study with highest quality to represent the current best evidence to generate recommendations. RESULTS 3 meta-analyses fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. The AMSTAR scores of included studies varied from 5-8(mean:6.3) and all included studies had critically low reliability in their summary of results due to their methodological flaws according to AMSTAR 2 grades. The current best evidence showed that utilization of PRP was not associated with significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes such as Visual Analog Score for pain compared to the standard fusion procedure. Moreover, PRP was found to be associated with lower fusion rates. CONCLUSION Based on this systematic overview, the effectiveness of PRP as a biological agent in augmenting spinal fusion is limited. Current evidence does not support the use of PRP as an adjuvant to enhance spinal fusion.
Role of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Spinal Fusion Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Adv Orthop. 2020;2020:8361798
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used very successfully in enhancing bone fusion in animal experiments. Also, the efficaciousness of PRP in other specialties of medicine such as dentistry, dermatology ophthalmology, and sports medicine is well documented. But the use of PRP to augment bone fusion after spinal surgery in humans is still controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the role of PRP in enhancing spinal fusion by fastening the rate of new bone formation and decreasing pain after spinal surgery in humans. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library studies that compared PRP versus control in enhancing spinal fusion after deformity correction. Results: Five retrospective studies with 253 participants and nine prospective cohort studies with 460 participants were identified. The bone fusion rate was excellent for studies that used a high platelet concentration in PRP relative to control (odds ratio (OR) = 4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.13, 8.83), and P < 0.05) while bone fusion was poor to studies that used a low concentrate of platelet in PRP relative to control. The rate of new bone formation was high in the PRP group compared to the control group with the mean difference in Hounsfield unit (HU) 144.91 (95% CI (80.63, 209.18), P < 0.05). Time to bone fusion was short in the PRP group during the first six months of surgery relative to the control group with a mean difference of -2.03 (95% CI (-2.35, -1.7); P < 0.05). No difference was found in pain reduction by visual analog score (VAS) between the PRP group and control. Conclusion: PRP facilitates new bone formation and bone fusion with a minimum concentration of the growth factor 5 times that of the peripheral blood. PRP stimulatory effects are not continuous and are very effective within six months of implantation.
The efficacy of using platelet-rich plasma in spinal fusion surgery-A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis
World Neurosurg. 2020
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been frequently used to enhance bone regeneration. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically assess the fusion rate and pain relief of applying PRP in spinal fusion surgery. METHODS Studies investigating spinal fusion surgery combined with PRP procedure were retrieved from Medline and Web of Science according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality evaluation was conducted using the Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment for cohort trials. Statistics were managed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS A total of 12 studiesincluding 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies, with 661 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The mean age was 52.3+/-8.0 years. The over pooled results demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in fusion rates between PRP and non-PRP treatment groups. The risk ratio was 1.01 (95% confidence intervals (95%CIs): 0.95-1.06, p=0.83). There was no significant difference in pain relief as measured by the Visual Analog Scale between the two groups. The mean difference was -0.08 (95% CIs:-0.26 - 0.11, p=0.42). CONCLUSION Adding PRP could not increase fusion rates in spinal fusion surgery. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in pain relief between PRP and non-PRP treatment groups.
The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the fusion rate and clinical outcome of spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
PloS one. 2020;15(12):e0243204
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used in many orthopedic surgeries and spinal disease treatments; however, the effect of PRP on spinal fusion remains controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES To assess the fusion rate and clinical results of PRP compared with non-PRP administration in the treatment of spinal fusion with regard to decreasing pain and improving healing and function. PATIENTS AND METHODS Studies comparing PRP to non-PRP treatment with respect to the fusion rate and clinical outcome in patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery were included. RESULT Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 prospective cohort studies were identified. The spinal fusion rate was not significantly different between the groups in all RCTs or cohort studies at the final follow-up. In comparison, PRP significantly reduced pain after surgery as evaluated in the RCT analysis and the complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION According to the available studies, PRP does not contribute to the union rate, relieve pain or increase the complication rate in spinal fusion surgery. As clinical heterogeneity exists in these studies, further large, well-designed RCTs that focus on the standard assessment of PRP are needed.
The impact of platelet-rich plasma on postoperative outcomes after spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;:1-8
OBJECTIVE Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological agent obtained by centrifuging a sample of blood and retrieving a high concentration of platelets and plasma components. The concentrate is then stimulated for platelet secretion of various growth factors and cytokines. Although it is not widely used in clinical practice, its role in augmenting bony union among patients undergoing spinal fusion has been assessed in several clinical studies. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to determine the efficacy of PRP use in spinal fusion procedures. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies from all available dates. From eligible studies, data regarding the fusion rate and method of assessing fusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), and baseline and final visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected as the primary outcomes of interest. Patients were grouped by those undergoing spinal fusion with PRP and bone graft (PRP group) and those only with bone graft (graft-only group). RESULTS The literature search resulted in 207 articles. Forty-five full-text articles were screened, of which 11 studies were included, resulting in a meta-analysis including 741 patients. Patients without PRP were more likely to have a successful fusion at the last follow-up compared with those with PRP in their bone grafts (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.84; p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to change in VAS scores (OR 0.00, 95% CI -2.84 to 2.84; p > 0.99) or change in EBL (OR 3.67, 95% CI -67.13-74.48; p = 0.92) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS This study found that the additional use of PRP was not associated with any significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and was actually found to be associated with lower fusion rates compared with standard grafting techniques. Thus, PRP may have a limited role in augmenting spinal fusion.