A Double-Blinded Placebo Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Short-term Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Reducing Postoperative Pain After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether patients with arthroscopically repaired rotator cuff (RC) tears would have reduced pain and improved function after ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections compared with placebo injection. HYPOTHESIS: PRP compared with placebo (saline) was more effective in reducing pain at the site of an RC injury that has undergone arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: We conducted a 2-centered, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the level of pain in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair. Patients were randomized to either PRP or saline (placebo). They received 2 ultrasound-guided injections of the randomized product: 1 intraoperatively and 1 at 4 weeks postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was shoulder pain demonstrated using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D); the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC); and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (DASH), as well as adverse events and revision surgeries. Patients were assessed clinically preoperatively and at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postsurgery. A prespecified interim analysis was conducted after 50% of patients were recruited and followed. RESULTS: We recruited 25 patients when interim power analysis led to an early trial termination. Follow-up was 96%. The mean difference between groups was not statistically significant (-1.81; 95% CI, -4.3 to 1.2; P = 0.16). The EQ-5D, WORC, and DASH scores also did not show significant differences between groups at week 6 (P = 0.5, 0.99, and 0.9, respectively). There were no revision surgeries, and 4 adverse events (3 PRP, 1 saline). CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference in outcome measures when augmenting arthroscopically repaired RC tears with PRP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Identifying therapies that improve outcomes in patients with RC tears remains a challenge and deserves ongoing investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".