Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
J Orthop Traumatol. 2022 Feb 7;23(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s10195-022-00630-1.
The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP.
The present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase were accessed in August 2021. All the clinical trials which compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP were included.
Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were included: 38% (318 of 837 patients) were women; the mean age of the patients was 35.6 (range, 20.8-64.3) years; the mean follow-up was 26.2 (range, 6-54) months. Similarity was found in analogue scale (VAS) (P = 0.5) and Lysholm (P = 0.9), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (P = 0.9). Similarity was found in the rate of failure (P = 0.4) and rate of revision (P = 0.07).
The current published scientific evidence does not support PRP augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair.
富血小板血浆（PRP）增强关节镜半月板修复的疗效和安全性存在争议。本荟萃分析比较了单独进行的关节镜半月板修复和用 PRP 增强的关节镜半月板修复。
本研究根据 PRISMA 2020 指南进行。2021 年 8 月检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、Google Scholar 和 Embase。纳入了比较单独进行的关节镜半月板修复和用 PRP 增强的关节镜半月板修复的所有临床试验。
共纳入 837 名患者：38%（837 名患者中有 318 名）为女性；患者的平均年龄为 35.6 岁（范围，20.8-64.3）；平均随访时间为 26.2 个月（范围，6-54）。模拟量表（VAS）（P=0.5）和 Lysholm（P=0.9）以及国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分（P=0.9）相似。失败率（P=0.4）和翻修率（P=0.07）相似。
目前发表的科学证据不支持 PRP 增强关节镜半月板修复。
