The clinical efficacy of leukocyte-poor plateletrich plasma in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff injury has been reported in the literature. However, conclusions have been inconsistent and more often related to differences in the types of PRP used. Therefore, to minimize these differences, we performed a meta-analysis of only studies investigating leukocyte-poor PRP to evaluate whether PRP promotes and improves the effects of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of leukocyte-poor PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The available data were extracted, and the methodologic quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Results: In total, 10 randomized controlled trials involving 742 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that treatment with leukocyte-poor PRP performed better than the control treatment in relieving postoperative pain in the short-term (mean difference [MD], - 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.79 to - 0.35; P < .0001) and medium- and long-term (MD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.03; P = .02) follow-up groups. However, the changes in the MD in the visual analog scale score were below the minimal clinically important difference. Regarding the Constant shoulder (MD, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.68-5.02; P < .0001) and University of California, Los Angeles (MD, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.94-2.52; P <.0001) scores, statistically significant differences were found in favor of leukocyte-poor PRP over the control treatment. However, the changes in the MD in both the Constant and University of California, Los Angeles scores were below the minimal clinically important difference. Moreover, during medium- and long-term follow-up, the retear rate in the leukocyte-poor PRP group was lower than that in the control group regardless of the rotator cuff tear size (small and medium [<3 cm] [risk ratio (RR), 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.97; P = .03] vs. medium and large [>3 cm] [RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.77; P = .001]) and surgical repair method (single-row repair [RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87; P = .007] vs. double-row suture bridge repair [RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84; P = .005]). Conclusion: According to our study, leukocyte-poor PRP can significantly reduce the postoperative retear rate in the medium and long term regardless of the tear size and the method used for rotator cuff repair. However, the use of leukocyte-poor PRP failed to show clinically meaningful effects in terms of postoperative pain and patient-reported outcomes. (C) 2020 The Author(s).

Automated summary

The meta-analysis found that leukocyte-poor PRP can reduce the retear rate in medium and long-term follow-up after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, regardless of tear size and repair method. However, it did not show significant effects on postoperative pain and patient-reported outcomes.