Lim Joseph J, McCarty Cleveland, Belk John W, Keeter Carson, Frank Rachel M, Bravman Jonathan T, Seidl Adam J, McCarty Eric C
Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2025 Jul 30;13(7):23259671251358398. doi: 10.1177/23259671251358398. eCollection 2025 Jul.
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and patch augmentation (PA) are 2 adjuncts that are used in the context of rotator cuff repair (RCR) to strengthen the repair construct and promote healing.
To systematically review the literature to compare the clinical efficacy of RCR with PA versus RCR with PRP.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify Level 1 and 2 studies that compared the clinical efficacy of RCR alone with RCR with PRP or RCR with PA. The search phrase used was as follows: rotator cuff repair AND (patch OR augmentation OR bioinductive OR implant OR PRP OR platelet-rich plasma OR platelet-rich plasma). Patients were assessed based on the visual analog scale for pain, the Constant-Murley score, the American Shoulder and Elbow score, the University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, range of motion (ROM), and retear rates.
A total of 27 studies (Level 1 or 2) met the inclusion criteria, including 342 patients undergoing RCR with PA (mean age, 60 years) and 547 patients undergoing RCR with PRP (mean age, 58.1 years). The mean follow-up was 20.6 months in the PA group and 22.2 months in the PRP group. Among all patient-reported outcomes and ROM measures, there were no significant differences in weighted improvements between the 2 groups from pre- to postoperatively. However, patients undergoing RCR with PRP (13.1%) demonstrated significantly lower retear rates at the latest follow-up when compared with patients undergoing RCR with PA (18.4%) ( = .04).
Patients undergoing RCR with PRP may experience lower retear rates when compared with patients undergoing RCR with PA. Patients in both groups can be expected to experience similar improvements in both patient-reported and functional outcomes, although further randomized studies are needed to directly compare these 2 groups.
富血小板血浆（PRP）和补片增强术（PA）是用于肩袖修复（RCR）以加强修复结构并促进愈合的两种辅助手段。
系统回顾文献，比较PA辅助RCR与PRP辅助RCR的临床疗效。
系统回顾；证据等级，2级。
通过检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase数据库进行系统回顾，以确定比较单纯RCR与PRP辅助RCR或PA辅助RCR临床疗效的1级和2级研究。使用的检索词如下：肩袖修复AND（补片OR增强术OR生物诱导OR植入物OR PRP OR富血小板血浆OR富含血小板血浆）。根据疼痛视觉模拟量表、Constant-Murley评分、美国肩肘评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校肩评分、活动范围（ROM）和再撕裂率对患者进行评估。
共有27项（1级或2级）研究符合纳入标准，包括342例行PA辅助RCR的患者（平均年龄60岁）和547例行PRP辅助RCR的患者（平均年龄58.1岁）。PA组的平均随访时间为20.6个月，PRP组为22.2个月。在所有患者报告的结局和ROM测量中，两组术前至术后的加权改善无显著差异。然而，与行PA辅助RCR的患者（18.4%）相比，行PRP辅助RCR的患者在最近一次随访时的再撕裂率显著更低（=0.04）。
与行PA辅助RCR的患者相比，行PRP辅助RCR的患者可能有更低的再撕裂率。尽管需要进一步的随机研究来直接比较这两组，但两组患者在患者报告的结局和功能结局方面预计会有相似的改善。
