1.
The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma applicated in spinal fusion surgery: A meta-analysis
Yu H, Zhou Z, Yu B, Sun T, Tang Q, Jia Y
Frontiers in surgery. 2022;9:924753
Abstract
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.
2.
Are platelet concentrates an ideal biomaterial for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Li X, Xu CP, Hou YL, Song JQ, Cui Z, Yu B
Arthroscopy. 2014;30((11):):1483-90.
Abstract
PURPOSE The present study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of Level I evidence studies to investigate the efficacy of concomitant platelet concentrate (PC) used in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of PC augmentation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs for patients with full-thickness tears. The search strategy followed the requirements in the Cochrane Library Handbook. The primary outcome was retearing of the rotator cuff. Functional outcomes were analyzed in terms of Constant score, specific Constant pain score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. RESULTS Seven studies with a total of 417 patients available at the latest follow-up reporting data about retears were analyzed in this meta-analysis. However, 4 studies with Constant scores (n = 237), 3 studies with UCLA scores (n = 168), 2 studies with Constant pain scores (n = 164), 2 studies with ASES scores (n = 101), and 2 studies with SST scores (n = 121) were analyzed. The retear rates and functional scores showed that there was no significant efficacy of PC application in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis of high-level evidence suggests that PCs have no benefit regarding retear rate and overall clinical outcomes for the arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Copyright 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.