4.4 Article

Two-staged application of PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a matched-pair analysis

Journal

ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
Volume 136, Issue 8, Pages 1165-1171

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2499-4

Keywords

Platelet-rich plasma; Autologous conditioned plasma; Rotator cuff repair; Growth factors; Tendon healing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Failure rates after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair remain high. Platelet-rich plasma has gained interest as a potential biological augmentation to enhance bone-tendon healing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and structural outcomes of repeated PRP application on rotator cuff repair. Thirty-six patients underwent arthroscopic reconstruction, using knotless anchor double-row repair. Eighteen patients [10 female, 8 male; 61.2 (+/- 9.2) years] received two applications of PRP-directly subsequent to the repair and 7 days postoperatively. Eighteen patients [11 male, 7 female; 61.4 (+/- 6.5) years] who solely received the same technique of rotator cuff repair were matched for age. The subjective shoulder value, WORC, and the Constant-Murley score were used for clinical evaluation. MRI was performed for tendon integrity, and cuff appearances were graded according to the Sugaya classification. We prospectively evaluated the PRP group with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Clinical results did not show significantly differences in comparison to patients with isolated rotator cuff repair concerning CS (79 +/- A 13 vs. 77 +/- A 13; P = 0.6), SSV (90 +/- A 14 vs. 88 +/- A 16; P = 0.5) or WORC Score (90 +/- A 18 vs. 86 +/- A 20; P = 0.2). At the final follow-up, MRI showed retears in 11 % of the PRP and in 28 % of the control group (P = 0.4). Knotless-anchor double-row repair shows good to excellent clinical results with an acceptable retear rate. Additional two-staged PRP application failed to significantly improve clinical parameters. Even though there was a trend for lower retear rates in the PRP group, it did not achieve statistical difference. Level III, Retrospective comparative study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available