ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Platelet-rich plasma for post-tonsillectomy pain, haemorrhage, and wound healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether intraoperative autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) reduces postoperative pain and haemorrhage and enhances wound healing after tonsillectomy, while critically evaluating the limitations that affect clinical translation and future applications.
methodsFive databases were searched through 3 July 2026 for randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with no PRP, placebo, or an untreated contralateral fossa. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and certainty using GRADE. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used for pain and healing outcomes; sparse haemorrhage outcomes were analysed using Mantel-Haenszel common-effect models with sensitivity analyses. Parallel-group and split-mouth trials were analysed separately.
resultsTwelve randomized trials including 723 patients were included, with 11 contributing quantitative data. PRP was associated with reduced pain on postoperative day (POD) 1 (MD -1.21, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40) and POD 3 (MD -1.12, 95% CI -2.10 to -0.14), although effects were heterogeneous and transient. Primary haemorrhage showed a favourable common-effect estimate (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.80), but this was based on only 12 events and was not confirmed by random-effects sensitivity analysis. Complete healing did not significantly differ between groups (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.59-3.06).
conclusionPRP may provide a modest early analgesic effect after tonsillectomy, but current evidence does not demonstrate a consistent improvement in haemostasis or mucosal healing. Future research should focus on standardized PRP characterization, patient-level comparative trials, and direct evaluation of whether PRP improves tissue regeneration compared with other biomaterial-based approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867652What 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.