Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Intraoperative Application of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma on Surgical Site Infection or Delayed Wound Healing. (May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: SanGiovanni, Thomas P.; Kiebzak, Gary M.
• Is Part Of: Foot & ankle international. Volume 37:Number 5(2016:May)
• Page Start: 470
• Page End: 477
• Publication Date: 2016-05
• Subjects: platelet-rich plasma -- postoperative infection -- delayed wound healing; Foot -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Ankle -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; 617.585
• DOI: 10.1177/1071100715623994
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1071-1007

Abstract

Background: Prevention of surgical site infections and the reduction of wound-related complication rates have become increasingly emphasized by hospital task groups and government agencies given the degree of economic burden it places on the health care system. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) contains growth factors and other biomolecules that promote endogenous microbicidal activity. We hypothesized that PRP would help prevent postoperative infection and delayed wound healing (DWH). Methods: We randomized patients having foot or ankle surgery to the treatment group receiving intraoperative PRP (applied to operative field) and platelet-poor plasma at closing (PPP, on the sutured skin) or the control group (no PRP/PPP). The incidence of deep surgical site infection and DWH (collectively called endpoints ) was compared between groups (n = 250/group). PRP had a mean 5.3-fold platelet concentration compared to whole blood, with concentrated white blood cells. Mean age (±SD) of patients was 52 years (±15), 65% were women. Minor and major operative procedures were included. Patients were followed for 60 days. Seventy controls had PRP prepared for assay of growth factors. Procedure mix, ASA scores, mean operative times, and comorbidity mix were similar between groups. Results: The primary result was no difference in number of endpoints between groups: 19 patients in the PRP group (7.6%) versus 18 controls (7.2%). Endpoints were deep surgical site infections in 2 PRP/PPP patients and 1 control, and DWH in 17 PRP/PPP patients and 17 controls. Analysis of PRP samples revealed a large variation in growth factor concentrations between patients. Conclusions: Intraoperative application of PRP/PPP did not reduce the incidence of postoperative infection or DWH. Growth factor profiles varied greatly between patients, suggesting that the potentially therapeutic treatment delivered was not consistent from patient-to-patient. Level of Evidence: Level I, prospective randomized trial.