Augmentation of Meniscal Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies. Issue 6 (17th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Belk, John W.; Kraeutler, Matthew J.; Thon, Stephen G.; Littlefield, Connor P.; Smith, John H.; McCarty, Eric C.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 8:Issue 6(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-06-17
• Subjects: meniscal repair -- platelet-rich plasma -- augmentation -- knee; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967120926145
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

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.