Topical use of platelet-rich plasma can improve the clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 1316 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is extracted by centrifuging whole blood and characterized with a high concentration of platelets. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to November 2016 and any studies involving PRP versus placebo for patients prepared for TKA were selected by two reviewers. The primary endpoint is the range of motion (ROM), which represents the function after TKA. The Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Bellamy (WOMAC), pain at 24 h, 48 h and 7 day are also assessed the effect of PRP on the function and pain after TKA. The complications of infection is also compiled to assess the safety of PRP. Stata 12.0 was used to synthesis the final results. RESULTS: Eleven clinical trials with 1316 patients are included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results indicate that administration PRP significantly increase ROM on the third day (MD = 4.72, 95% CI 2.74, 6.69; P = 0.000) and 3 month postoperatively (MD = 7.55, 95% CI 5.91, 9.19; P = 0.000). There is no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of WOMAC questionnaire score in 3 months (MD = -4.88, 95% CI -12.12, 2.41; P = 0.190). There were no statistical significance between the two groups in pain intensity at 24 h, 48 h and 7 day. There is no statistically significant difference between the PRP versus placebo in terms of the occurrence of infection (RR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.19-2.14, P = 0.464). CONCLUSION: Current meta-analysis indicates that PRP is associated with increasing the ROM after TKA in short term and long term. What's more, PRP can also decrease the WOMAC score and pain intensity without increasing the occurrence of infection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".