ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026
Platelet-Rich Plasma in Postpartum Wound and Scar Repair: A Narrative Review of Clinical Evidence, Patient-Centered Outcomes, and Translational Challenges.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived product containing concentrated platelets and platelet-associated mediators involved in hemostasis, inflammation, angiogenesis, epithelialization, fibroblast activity, and extracellular matrix remodeling. In obstetric practice, cesarean abdominal wounds, perineal injury, pelvic floor trauma, and uterine scars represent distinct repair settings with different clinical consequences. This narrative review evaluates current evidence for PRP in postpartum wound and scar repair, with emphasis on patient-centered outcomes and the distinction between superficial abdominal healing and uterine scar remodeling. Evidence is most developed for cesarean abdominal wounds, where several small controlled studies and two recent meta-analyses suggest modest improvement in selected early wound and scar measures; postoperative pain intensity is not consistently reduced. Evidence for perineal repair is more heterogeneous: uncontrolled and case-based reports suggest feasibility, a small comparative study in severe perineal rupture suggests possible functional benefit, and a randomized trial of levator ani injury did not demonstrate improved muscle recovery. Uterine scar application remains exploratory and rests mainly on one small pilot trial. Changes in residual myometrial thickness or niche morphology are surrogate imaging findings and do not establish greater scar strength, improved fertility, lower uterine rupture risk, or safer subsequent pregnancy. Clinical translation is further limited by heterogeneity in PRP source, preparation, platelet dose, leukocyte content, activation, anatomical application site, outcome assessment, and follow-up. Better characterized products, indication-specific trials, patient-reported outcomes, and long-term reproductive follow-up are required before routine postpartum use can be recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.