Arthroscopic knotless tape bridging with autologous platelet-rich fibrin gel augmentation: functional and structural results

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Basic scientific studies have demonstrated positive effects of platelet-rich therapies, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), on tendon repair. However, clinical evidence indicating improved prognosis is controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine whether augmentation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with PRP and PRF improves outcomes compared to arthroscopic repair alone.

LITERATURE SURVEY

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until June 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. No language restriction was applied.

METHODOLOGY

The primary outcomes were the rate of repeat tears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (retear rate) and clinical function scores (Constant-Murley Score, University of California, Los Angeles Score), and the extracted data were assessed for quality. Statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5.3, and p < .05 was considered statistically significant.

SYNTHESIS

Ten RCTs with 628 patients were included. The results showed that augmenting surgery with PRP reduces retear rates compared to surgery alone (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.69, p = .001), whereas PRF has no effect on retear rates (p = .92). Regarding clinical function, PRP improves Constant-Murley scores (mean difference [MD] = 2.03, 95% CI 0.13-3.93, p = .04) and University of California, Los Angeles scores (MD = 1.30, 95% CI 0.36-2.24, p = .007), whereas PRF improves only Constant-Murley scores (MD = 3.93, 95% CI 1.50-6.36, p = .002). However, these differences were small and below the minimum clinically important difference threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that compared to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair alone, the application of PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair reduces retear rate and improves clinical function scores, whereas the application of PRF has no clinically meaningful benefit. The small number and heterogeneity of studies as well as methodological limitations and risk of bias limit confidence in the true effect.

Evidence for Utilization of Injectable Biologic Augmentation in Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Data From 2010 to 2022

Background

Biologic healing after rotator cuff repair remains a significant challenge. Injectable biologic augmentation may improve tissue quality at the suture-tendon interface.

Purpose

To investigate the effect of injectable biologic supplementation in rotator cuff repair and to assess the quality and adherence to evolving reporting standards.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included were 40 studies: 29 preclinical (in vivo animal models) and 11 clinical. Each clinical study was assessed for quality, risk of bias, and adherence to relevant MIBO (Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics) guidelines. The outcomes of interest were reported load to failure, load to gap, gap size, and stiffness in the preclinical studies, and healing rate and any patient-reported outcome measures in the clinical studies.

Results

Injectables reported included growth factors (eg, transforming growth factor-beta 3, erythropoietin), bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs), and other agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid. The most common findings for preclinical injectables were increased load to failure (16/29 studies; 55.2%) and improved collagen histological quality (11/29 studies; 37.9%). All 11 clinical studies (10 PRP, 1 ADSC) indicated no adverse events, with similar or improved patient-reported outcomes compared with repairs in the control groups. In 1 study utilizing an innovative delivery technique, a concentrated PRP globule with fibrin matrix was shuttled over a suture to maintain concentrated PRP at the repair site and demonstrated a significant decrease in retears (P = .03) at a 31-month follow-up. A matched-cohort study investigating augmentation with ADSCs demonstrated a significantly lower retear rate in the ADSC-augmented group than the control group at a 28-month follow-up (P < .001). On average, the clinical studies adhered to 66% of relevant MIBO reporting guidelines and had a low risk of bias.

Conclusion

Approximately 83% of preclinical studies found a positive biomechanical or histological effect, with no studies showing an overall negative effect. Clinically, utilization of innovative delivery techniques may reduce the risk of arthroscopic washout of PRP and improve retear rates. ADSCs were shown to reduce retear rates at a 28-month follow-up.

The Effect of PRP Augmentation of Arthroscopic Repairs of Shoulder Rotator Cuff Tears on Postoperative Clinical Scores and Retear Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to assess recent clinical trials concerning the combination of operative treatment of rotator cuff tears and the administration of PRP and its effect on clinical scores and postoperative retear rates. The trials were used to compare the combination of PRP treatment and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair to arthroscopy alone. Twenty-five clinical trials were reviewed. A risk-of-bias assessment was made for all randomized clinical trials included, using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool as well as a quality assessment for all non-randomized studies utilizing the Newcastle−Ottawa scale. The PRP-treated patients showed statistically significant improvement postoperatively compared to control groups concerning the Constant−Murley (mean difference 2.46, 95% CI 1.4−3.52, p < 0.00001), SST (mean difference 0.32, 95% CI 0.02−0.63, p = 0.04), and UCLA (mean difference 0.82, 95% CI 0.23−1.43, p = 0.07) scores. A statistically significant decrease of retear rates in the PRP-treated patients, with a risk ratio of 0.78 (95% CI 0.65−0.94, p = 0.01), was found. We believe that the results presented have positive aspects, especially concerning the retear risk, but are yet inconclusive concerning clinical results such as shoulder pain and function.