|
| Surgical use of PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair |
| Author | Evidence | PRP formulation | Surgical technique | Number of patients | Comments |
|
Randelli et al.
(2011) [5] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Injectable PRP
(GPS system) | Single row | 53 | Better clinical outcomes at 3 mo; better clinical outcomes at 12, 24 months for smaller tears with PRP |
Ruiz-Moneo et al.
(2013) [6] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Injectable PRP
(PRGF Endoret system) | Double row | 63 | No differences in rotator cuff healing or function at 1 year |
Antuña et al.
(2013) [7] | Level 2
Randomized controlled | Injectable PRP
(Vivostat system) | Single row | 28 | No differences in clinical outcomes and healing rate at 2 years |
Charousset et al.
(2014) [8] | Level 3
Case control | Injectable PRP
(GPS system) | Double row | 70 | No differences in cuff healing or function at 2 years
A significant advantage for the L-PRP patients in terms of smaller iterative tears |
Gumina et al.
(2012) [9] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(RegenKit-THT system) | Single row | 76 | Lower retear in the PRP group; no differences for clinical outcomes |
Jo et al.
(2011) [10] | Level 2
Prospective cohort | Suturable PRP
(COBE spectra system) | Transosseous equivalent | 42 | Trend for lower re-tearing in the PRP group; no differences for recovery and function |
Jo et al.
(2013) [11] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(COBE spectra system) | Transosseous equivalent | 48 | Lower retear and function at 1 year in the PRP group |
Zumstein et al.
(2014) [12] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(PRF process) | Transosseous equivalent | 20 | Increased vascularization for cuff tears with PRP |
Castricini et al.
(2011) [13] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(Cascade system) | Double row | 88 | No difference for clinical outcomes at 16 months; better restoration of footprint in PRP group
Lower retear using the chi-square test for binomial in Arnoczky [14] analysis |
Rodeo et al.
(2012) [15] | Level 2
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(Cascade system) | Single OR double row/transosseous equivalent | 67 | No difference in tendon healing, tendon vascularity, and clinical scores at 1 year |
Barber et al.
(2011) [16] | Level 3
Case-control study | Suturable PRP
(Cascade system) | Single row | 40 | Lower retear in the PRP group; better healing for smaller tears with PRP |
Bergeson et al.
(2012) [17] | Level 3
Cohort study | Suturable PRP
(Cascade system) | Single or double row | 37 | Higher retear rate in patients with at-risk rotator cuff tears with PRFM; no difference in functional outcome scores
Historical control group |
Weber et al.
(2013) [18] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | Suturable PRP
(Cascade system) | Single row | 60 | No difference in perioperative morbidity, clinical outcomes, or structural integrity |
|
| PRP injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy |
| Author | Evidence | PRP intervention | Control intervention | Number of patients | Comments |
|
Rha et al.
(2013) [19] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | 2 PRP (3 mL) injections at a 4-week interval | 2 dry needling procedures at a 4-week interval | 39 | PRP was superior with respect to pain, function, and range of motion over a 6-month period |
Kesikburun et al.
(2013) [20] | Level 1
Randomized controlled | 1 injection of PRP (5 mL) | 1 injection of saline solution (5 mL) | 40 | No difference for quality of life, pain, disability, and range of motion at 1 year |
|
