Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35129728›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2022

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation does not result in more favourable outcomes in arthroscopic meniscal repair: a meta-analysis.

Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Cuozzo, Lucio Cipollaro, Francesco Oliva, Frank Hildebrand, Nicola Maffulli

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in meniscal repair surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Outside-in repair technique is effective in traumatic tears of the meniscus in active adults: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Biologic Augmentation for Meniscus Repair: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Chitosan/Platelet-Rich Plasma Implants in an Ovine Arthroscopic Model of Meniscus Repair.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Biologic Augmentation of Isolated Meniscal Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Francesco CuozzoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Lucio CipollaroDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Francesco OlivaDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair is controversial. This meta-analysis compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP.

methodsThe present study was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase were accessed in August 2021. All the clinical trials which compared arthroscopic meniscal repair performed in isolation or augmented with PRP were included.

resultsEight hundred thirty-seven patients were included: 38% (318 of 837 patients) were women; the mean age of the patients was 35.6 (range, 20.8-64.3) years; the mean follow-up was 26.2 (range, 6-54) months. Similarity was found in analogue scale (VAS) (P = 0.5) and Lysholm (P = 0.9), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (P = 0.9). Similarity was found in the rate of failure (P = 0.4) and rate of revision (P = 0.07).

conclusionThe current published scientific evidence does not support PRP augmentation for arthroscopic meniscal repair.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneePlatelet-Rich PlasmaArthroscopyChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantKnee JointMenisci, TibialTreatment OutcomeArthroscopyAugmentationMeniscusPRPRepair

Identifiers

PMID35129728
PMCPMC8821738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.