Platelet-rich plasma use in meniscus repair treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting clinical evidence whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapies could translate to an increased meniscus healing rate and improved functional outcomes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the failure rate and patient-reported functional outcomes in meniscus repair augmented with and without PRP. METHODS: We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of meniscus repair performed with PRP versus without PRP. The primary outcome was the meniscus repair failure rate, while the secondary outcomes were knee-specific patient-reported outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm knee scale, visual analog scale, Tegner activity level score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying the studies according to the PRP preparation technique to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included nine studies (two RCTs and seven non-RCTs) with 1164 participants. The failure rate in the PRP group was significantly lower than that in the non-PRP group [odds ratio: 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42, 0.96), P = 0.03]. Furthermore, the PRP group was associated with a statistically significant improvement in the visual analog scale for pain [Mean difference (MD): - 0.76, 95% CI (- 1.32, - 0.21), P = 0.007] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-symptom [MD: 8.02, 95% CI (2.99, 13.05), P = 0.002] compared with the non-PRP group. However, neither the IKDC score nor the Lysholm knee scale showed any differences between the two groups. In addition, the results of subgroup analyses favored PRP over platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) regarding the IKDC score. CONCLUSIONS: Although meniscus repairs augmented with PRP led to significantly lower failure rates and better postoperative pain control compared with those of the non-PRP group, there is insufficient RCT evidence to support PRP augmentation of meniscus repair improving functional outcomes. Moreover, PRP could be recommended in meniscus repair augmentation compared with PRFM. PRFM was shown to have no benefit in improving functional 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".