Augmentation of Meniscal Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for meniscal repair (MR) is unclear, as current evidence is limited to small, mostly nonrandomized studies. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR with PRP augmentation. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies (level of evidence 1-3) that compared the clinical efficacy of MR performed with versus without PRP. The search phrase used was platelet-rich plasma meniscus. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Lysholm score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and treatment failure. Results: We identified 6 studies (2 studies with level 1 evidence; 4 studies with level 3 evidence) that met inclusion criteria, for a total of 309 patients undergoing MR with PRP (mean age, 31.9 years) and 445 patients without PRP augmentation (mean age, 29.6 years). The mean follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 12-72 months). Overall, 17.0% of PRP patients experienced MR failure compared with 22.1% of non-PRP patients. No differences in VAS, Lysholm, or subjective IKDC scores were found between groups except in 1 study, in which postoperative subjective IKDC scores were significantly better in the PRP group ( P < .01). Another study found significantly better postoperative WOMAC scores among PRP patients, and 2 studies found significantly better KOOS subscores among PRP patients. Conclusion: There are a limited number of high-quality studies comparing outcomes and healing rates between patients undergoing MR with versus without PRP augmentation. Based on the available evidence, patients undergoing MR with PRP augmentation experience similar clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up when compared with conventional MR, and additional studies are needed to determine the efficacy of MR augmented with PRP.
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".