MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108611029 · doi:10.1177/2325967120964534

Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation for Isolated Arthroscopic Meniscal Repairs Leads to Significantly Lower Failure Rates: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

2020· review· en· W3108611029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyle R. Sochacki, Marc R. Safran, Geoffrey D. Abrams, Joseph Donahue, Constance R. Chu, Seth L. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaMeta-analysisContinuous variableSurgeryOdds ratioSystematic reviewArthroscopyInternal medicineMEDLINEPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies have reported relatively high failure rates of isolated meniscal repairs. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested as a way to increase growth factors that enhance healing. Purpose: To compare (1) meniscal repair failures and (2) patient-reported outcomes after isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with and without PRP. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Multiple databases were searched for studies that compared outcomes of isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with PRP versus without PRP in human patients. Failures and patient-reported outcome scores were reported for each study and compared between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 for each outcome measure before meta-analysis. Study methodological quality was analyzed. Continuous variable data were reported as mean and standard deviation from the mean. Categorical variable data were reported as frequency with percentage. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05. Results: Five articles were analyzed (274 patients [110 with PRP and 164 without PRP]; 65.8% male; mean age, 29.1 ± 4.6 years; mean follow-up, 29.2 ± 22.1 months). The risk of meniscal repair failure ranged from 4.4% to 26.7% for PRP-augmented repairs and 13.3% to 50.0% for repairs without PRP. Meniscal repairs augmented with PRP had significantly lower failure rates than repairs without PRP (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90; P = .03). One of the 5 studies reported significantly higher outcomes in the PRP-augmented group versus the no-PRP group for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) ( P < .05 for all). The remaining 4 studies reported no significant difference between groups with regard to outcomes for the IKDC, Lysholm knee scale, visual analog scale for pain, or Tegner activity level. Conclusion: Although the studies were of mostly of low quality, isolated arthroscopic meniscal repairs augmented with PRP led to significantly lower failure rates (10.8% vs 27.0%; odds ratio, 0.32; P = .03) as compared with repairs without PRP. However, most studies reported no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207