MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116652062 · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000004610

Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma plus microfracture compared with microfracture alone in the treatment of knee cartilage lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

2025· article· en· W7116652062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abakar Mahamat Abdramane, Ahmed Abdirahman, Michael Opoku, Mingqing Fang, Yusheng Li, Xia Yang, Wenfeng Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersXiangya Hospital, Central South UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaHealth Commission of Hunan ProvinceNational Children's Research Centre
KeywordsPlatelet-rich plasmaCartilageKnee cartilageArticular cartilageSystematic reviewCartilage damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with microfracture (MF) has shown promising potential in the treatment of knee cartilage lesions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to critically evaluate and compare the efficacy of using PRP + MF versus MF alone for the treatment of knee cartilage lesions in terms of short- and medium-term clinical outcomes. METHOD: We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for all relevant articles published from inception to July 2025. Clinical outcomes included Visual Analog Scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner Score, Lysholm Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). An effect size with a P -value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using the meta package in R (version 4.3.3). RESULTS: A total of 11 studies, comprising 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies, were included, totaling 664 patients. The main finding of this study is that the PRP + MF group demonstrated significantly improved VAS scores at the 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up; IKDC scores at the 24-month follow-up; Lysholm scores at the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up; and Tegner scores at the 3-month follow-up compared to the MF group. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the WOMAC score . Subgroup analyses showed superior Lysholm scores at 3 and 12 months and an IKDC score at 24 months in RCTs for the PRP + MF group compared to MF alone, while no significant differences were observed in VAS, Tegner, and WOMAC scores. In cohort studies, the PRP + MF group was associated with improved VAS at 3, 6, and 12 months; IKDC at 6 and 24 months, and Lysholm scores at 3 and 6 months, whereas Tegner scores showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: Compared with MF alone, PRP + MF produced clinically meaningful improvement in functional outcomes and pain control. The results of the present study may provide preliminary evidence for selecting treatments for knee cartilage lesions. However, higher-quality clinical studies with more quantitative outcomes are needed to confirm these results and determine the long-term effectiveness and safety of PRP augmentation following MF.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207