4.2 Article

Efficacy and safety of the use of autologous plasma rich in platelets for tissue regeneration: a systematic review

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 44-56

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01945.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. AETS
  2. Instituto Carlos III, Spain [PI05/90173]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Autologous plasma rich in platelets (PRP) is a derived blood product whose application in clinical practice is growing. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate its efficacy and safety. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A search was performed in electronic databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in adult patients were included and assessed for methodologic quality. The main outcomes were tissue regeneration and safety. Relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to show pooled estimates for these outcomes. When the results heterogeneity was more than 50 percent, a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included (11 of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 7 of chronic skin ulcers, and 2 of surgery wounds). Four RCTs evaluated the depth reduction in gingival recession in chronic periodontitis; the SMD was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.92) mm, favorable to PRP. Three RCTs evaluated the clinical attachment level in chronic periodontitis; the SMD was 0.33 (95% CI, -0.71 to 1.37) mm. Six RCTs assessed the complete skin epithelialization in wound ulcers; the RR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.85 to 2.31). Only 6 RCTs reported adverse effects without differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PRP improves the gingival recession but not the clinical attachment level in chronic periodontitis. In the complete healing process of chronic skin ulcers, the results are inconclusive. There are little data about PRP safety. There are several methodologic limitations and, consequently, future research should focus on strong and well-designed RCTs that assess the efficacy and safety of PRP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据