Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33169180›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021

PRP does not improve the objective outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

André Luís Lugnani de Andrade, Amanda Veiga Sardeli, Thiago Alves Garcia, Bruno Livani, William Dias Belangero

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biomaterials for Interbody Fusion in Bone Tissue Engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

André Luís Lugnani de AndradeFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil. drandre@unicamp.br.
Amanda Veiga SardeliLaboratory of Exercise Physiology-FISEX, University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0575-7996
Thiago Alves GarciaOrthopaedic Biomaterials Laboratory, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Bruno LivaniFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
William Dias BelangeroFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePlatelet rich plasma (PRP) has been used in association with anterior cruciate ligament resconstruction (ACLR) to improve rehabilitation. The purpose was to systematically review the literature to compare the effects of PRP on ACLR in its objective and subjective outcomes.

methodsA systematic review of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed. Two independent reviewers included all the English language literature of patients undergoing primary ACLR with autograft combined with PRP. The outcomes analyzed were graft ligamentization (MRI), tibial and femoral tunnel widening (MRI), knee laxity, IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner activity scale and visual analog scale.

resultsNine studies were included with a total of 525 patients. PRP did not improve ligamentization of graft (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.01 [95% CI: - 0.37; 0.39]), did not lead to lesser tunnel widening (SMD: 0.71 [95% CI: - 0.12; 1.54]), or lead to lesser knee laxity (raw mean difference: 0.33 [95% CI: - 0.84; 0.19]). Although there was statistical significance for PRP effects on Lysholm score and VAS (p < 0.01), their magnitude was limited.

conclusionPRP showed no improvement in objective outcomes like ligamentization and less tunnel widening, while it showed just small improvements in terms of Lysholm, VAS and knee laxity. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to support a recommendation in favor of PRP and more research is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionPlatelet-Rich PlasmaAnterior Cruciate LigamentHumansKnee JointTreatment OutcomeAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAutologous platelet concentrateKnee surgeryPlatelet-enriched plasma

Identifiers

PMID33169180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.