1.
A systematic review on efficacy of different types of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis
Li S, Yang G, Zhang H, Li X, Lu Y
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2022
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.
2.
Clinical studies on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy for chronic cutaneous ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Qu S, Hu Z, Zhang Y, Wang P, Li S, Huang S, Dong Y, Xu H, Rong Y, Zhu W, et al
Advances in wound care. 2021
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be a potential drug for treatment of chronic refractory ulcers, which increase the risk of systemic infection and local canceration. However, the efficacy and safety of clinical application of PRP are still controversial. Thus, this study was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PRP in patients with chronic ulcers. Recent Advances: For this meta-analysis, Cochrane's Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the proportion of completely healed chronic ulcers. CRITICAL ISSUES Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with the control group, PRP significantly increased the fraction of healed ulcers (pooled RR =1.50; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.87; I2=47.8%). In autologous PRP (APRP) and homologous PRP (HPRP) subgroups, there were statistical differences between the control group vs. treatment subgroup (pooled RR=1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.54, I2=25.7%; pooled RR=3.53, 95% CI 1.94 to 6.43, I2=0.0%, respectively). In terms of percent of chronic ulcers area healed, there was a statistically significant difference between the PRP-treated group vs. the control group (SMD=1.37, 95%CI=0.91 to 1.82, I2=22.1 %). As for PRP safety, there existed a statistically significant difference between the APRP subgroup and the HPRP subgroup, respectively (pooled RR=0.58; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; I2=0.0%) and (pooled RR=4.12; 95% CI 1.55 to 10.96; I2=6.8%). FUTURE DIRECTIONS Our findings shows that PRP may be a beneficial treatment of chronic skin ulcers and that APRP may be much safer than HPRP.
3.
Clinical Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Long-Bone Delayed Union and Nonunion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Li S, Xing F, Luo R, Liu M
Frontiers in medicine. 2021;8:771252
Abstract
BACKGROUND More recently, there was a series of clinical studies focusing on local administration of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in long-bone fracture patients suffering from delayed union and nonunion. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP injection for treatment of patients with long-bone delayed union and nonunion. METHODS Relevant clinical trials were selected by the main bibliographic databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library, to evaluate the effectiveness of PRP for long-bone fracture patients diagnosed with delayed union or nonunion by two reviewers independently. The main outcomes included healing rate, healing duration, pain relief, functional outcome, and complications. RESULTS Finally, thirteen studies including four hundred and fifty-nine participants met the selection criteria and were included in this systematic review. These articles included three randomized controlled studies, one prospective study, and nine retrospective studies. 146 out of 155 (94.19%) patients treated with PRP during operation, and 144 out of 183 (78.69%) patients treated with PRP injection alone, exhibited bone consolidation. The healing rate of the PRP group (85.80%) was higher than that of the control group (60.76%). The mean bony union time of patients treated and untreated with PRP, were, respectively, 4.64 and 5.15 months. Four papers reported that PRP was effective in pain relief of patient with delayed union and nonunion. Complications, including small subcutaneous hematoma, subcutaneous swelling, and postoperative infection, were also reported in enrolled studies. CONCLUSIONS PRP is a promising alternative treatment for patients with long-bone delayed union and nonunion. PRP could successfully promote the healing rate and relieve the pain of patients with delayed union and nonunion. However, the long-term adverse side and functional outcome in application of PRP still need further large-scale trials and long-term follow-up. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/61dbd2f837e948001e68d5c5/, The identifying number is research registry 7525.