1.
The use of platelet-rich plasma in oral surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Masiello F, Marano G, D'Aloja E, Dell'Aringa C, Pati I, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(5):357-367
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. RESULTS We found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias. DISCUSSION Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.
2.
Safety of intravenous tranexamic acid in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Franchini M, Mengoli C, Marietta M, Marano G, Vaglio S, Pupella S, Mannucci P M, Liumbruno G M
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del Sangue. 2018;16((1)):36-43.
Abstract
Among the various pharmacological options to decrease peri-operative bleeding, tranexamic acid appears to be one of the most interesting. Several trials have consistently documented the efficacy of this synthetic drug in reducing the risk of blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty. The safety of intravenous tranexamic acid in major orthopaedic surgery, particularly regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism, was systematically analysed in this review. A systematic search of the literature identified 73 randomised controlled trials involving 4,174 patients and 2,779 controls. The raw overall incidence of venous thromboembolism was 2.1% in patients who received intravenous tranexamic acid and 2.0% in controls. A meta-analytic pooling showed that the risk of venous thromboembolism in tranexamic acid-treated patients was not significantly different from that of controls (risk difference: 0.01%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05%, 0.07%; risk ratio: 1.067, 95% CI: 0.760-1.496). Other severe drug-related adverse events occurred very rarely (0.1%). In conclusion, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that intravenous tranexamic acid is a safe pharmacological treatment to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.