Saltzman Bryan M, Jain Akshay, Campbell Kirk A, Mascarenhas Randy, Romeo Anthony A, Verma Nikhil N, Cole Brian J
Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A..
Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2016 May;32(5):906-18. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.10.007. Epub 2015 Dec 23.
The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid.
Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales.
Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff.
The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears.
Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
本研究的目的如下:(1)对评估关节镜下肩袖修复手术时使用富血小板血浆(PRP)的荟萃分析进行系统评价,并确定其对再撕裂率和临床结果的影响;(2)为分析和解释当前可得的最佳证据提供一个框架;(3)确定文献中的空白之处,以便为持续的研究工作提供有效的建议。
进行文献检索,以识别比较使用PRP增强的关节镜下肩袖修复与对照组(不使用PRP)的荟萃分析。提取临床数据,并使用荟萃分析报告质量量表和奥克斯曼-盖亚特量表评估荟萃分析的质量。
七项荟萃分析符合纳入和排除标准。所有分析均被认为质量相似,荟萃分析报告质量量表得分>15,奥克斯曼量表得分为7。总共纳入了3193例接受治疗的重叠患者,平均随访时间为12至31个月。与对照组患者相比,在肩袖修复时使用PRP并未导致总体再撕裂率显著降低或临床结果评分改善。报告了以下比较PRP与对照组的术后功能评分:Constant评分(6项报告的荟萃分析中有5项显示使用PRP无显著差异)、加州大学洛杉矶分校评分(6项均无差异)、美国肩肘协会评分(4项均无差异)和简单肩部测试评分(5项中有3项无差异)。三项荟萃分析进行的亚组分析显示,与液体PRP相比,固体PRP基质、小和/或中型撕裂与大或巨大撕裂相比、在肌腱-骨界面应用PRP与在肌腱上应用相比以及在双排与单排肩袖修复中应用PRP,有改善结果的证据。
目前的最高证据水平表明,关节镜下肩袖修复时使用PRP并不能普遍提高再撕裂率或影响临床结果评分。然而,如果在以下特定变量的背景下进行评估,PRP使用对再撕裂率的影响倾向于产生有益结果:使用固体PRP基质;在肌腱-骨界面应用PRP;在双排修复中;以及小和/或中型肩袖撕裂。
III级,对II级和III级研究的系统评价。