Xu Wennan, Xue Qingyun
Orthopaedics Department, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Jul 13;9(7):23259671211016847. doi: 10.1177/23259671211016847. eCollection 2021 Jul.
It is unclear how and which factors affect the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) applied during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
To evaluate the clinical efficacy of PRP for arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tear and investigate the factors that affect its clinical efficacy.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.
We searched Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and OVID to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients who received PRP treatment and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (PRP group) versus controls (no-PRP group). The primary outcomes included retear rate, Constant-Murley score, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, short-term American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and adverse events.
A total of 14 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Significant improvement in Constant-Murley, UCLA, and VAS pain scores were found in the PRP group during short-term, midterm, and long-term follow-up. The PRP group had a significantly decreased retear rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.78]; = .0003), especially for long-term follow-up (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.83]; = .02), large to massive tears (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.80]; = .0008), use of leukocyte-poor PRP (RR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.76]; = .001), and intraoperative application of PRP (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79]; = .0007). No significant difference between the 2 groups was found in the incidence of adverse events (RR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.15]; = .23) or in ASES scores at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference, 1.04 [95% CI, -3.10 to 5.19]; = .62).
The results of this review indicated that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with PRP significantly reduced the long-term retear rate and shoulder pain and provided improved long-term shoulder function in patients. Intraoperative application of PRP, use of leukocyte-poor plasma, and large to massive tear size contributed to a significantly decreased retear rate for rotator cuff repair combined with PRP.
目前尚不清楚在关节镜下肩袖修复术中应用富血小板血浆(PRP)的方式及哪些因素会影响其临床疗效。
评估PRP在关节镜下全层肩袖撕裂修复中的临床疗效,并探究影响其临床疗效的因素。
系统评价;证据等级,1级。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE、MEDLINE和OVID,以确定接受PRP治疗并进行关节镜下肩袖修复的患者(PRP组)与对照组(非PRP组)的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局包括再撕裂率、Constant-Murley评分、加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)评分、短期美国肩肘外科医师学会(ASES)评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分以及不良事件。
本系统评价共纳入14项RCT。在短期、中期和长期随访中,PRP组的Constant-Murley、UCLA和VAS疼痛评分均有显著改善。PRP组的再撕裂率显著降低(风险比[RR],0.57[95%可信区间,0.42至0.78];P = 0.0003),尤其是在长期随访中(RR,0.38[95%可信区间,0.17至0.83];P = 0.02)、大至巨大撕裂(RR,0.58[95%可信区间,0.42至0.80];P = 0.0008)、使用少白细胞PRP(RR,0.50[95%可信区间,0.33至0.76];P = 0.001)以及术中应用PRP(RR,0.57[95%可信区间,0.42至0.79];P = 0.0007)时。两组在不良事件发生率(RR,1.34[95%可信区间,0.83至2.15];P = 0.23)或短期随访时的ASES评分(加权平均差,1.04[95%可信区间,-3.10至5.19];P = 0.62)方面未发现显著差异。
本综述结果表明,关节镜下肩袖修复联合PRP可显著降低长期再撕裂率并减轻肩部疼痛,改善患者的长期肩部功能。术中应用PRP、使用少白细胞血浆以及大至巨大撕裂尺寸有助于显著降低PRP联合肩袖修复的再撕裂率。