Abstract:BackgroundIncreased contact stresses after meniscectomy have led to an increased focus on meniscal preservation strategies to prevent articular cartilage degeneration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has received attention as a promising strategy to help induce healing and has been shown to do so both in vitro and in vivo. Although PRP has been used in clinical practice for some time, to date, few clinical studies support its use in meniscal repair.Questions/purposesWe sought to (1) evaluate whether PRP augmentation at the time of index meniscal repair decreases the likelihood that subsequent meniscectomy will be performed; (2) determine if PRP augmentation in arthroscopic meniscus repair influenced functional outcome measures; and (3) examine whether PRP augmentation altered clinical and patient-reported outcomes.MethodsBetween 2008 and 2011, three surgeons performed 35 isolated arthroscopic meniscus repairs. Of those, 15 (43%) were augmented with PRP, and 20 (57%) were performed without PRP augmentation. During the study period, PRP was used for patients with meniscus tears in the setting of no ACL reconstruction. Complete followup at a minimum of 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2–6 years) was available on 11 (73%) of the PRP-augmented knees and 15 (75%) of the nonaugmented knees. Clinical outcome measures including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and return to work and sports/activities survey tools were completed in person, over the phone, or through the mail. Range of motion data were collected from electronic patient charts in chart review. With the numbers available, a post hoc power calculation demonstrated that we would have expected to be able to discern a difference using IKDC if we treated 153 patients with PRP and 219 without PRP assuming an alpha rate of 5% and power exceeding 80%. Using the Lysholm score as an outcome measure, post hoc power estimate was 0.523 and effect size was −1.1 (−2.1 to −0.05) requiring 12 patients treated with PRP and 17 without to find statistically significant differences at p = 0.05 and power = 80%.ResultsThere was no difference in the proportion of patients who underwent reoperation in the PRP group (27% [four of 15]) compared with the non-PRP group (25% [five of 20]; p = 0.89). Functional outcome measures were not different between the two groups based on the measures used (mean IKDC score, 69; SD, 26 with PRP and 76; SD, 17 without PRP; p = 0.288; mean, Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, 66, SD, 32 with PRP and 89; SD, 10 without PRP; p = 0.065). With the numbers available there was no difference in the proportion of patients who returned to work in the PRP group (100% [six of six]) compared with the non-PRP group (100% [nine of nine]) or in the patients who returned to their regular sports/activities in the PRP group (71% [five of seven]) compared with the non-PRP group (78% [seven of nine]; p = 0.75).ConclusionsPatients who sustain meniscus injuries should be counseled at the time of injury about the outcomes after meniscus repair. With our limited study group, outcomes after meniscus repair with and without PRP appear similar in terms of reoperation rate. However, given the lack of power and nature of the study, modest size differences in outcome may not have been detected. Future larger prospective studies are needed to definitively determine whether PRP should be used with meniscal repair. Additionally, studies are needed to determine if PRP and other biologics may benefit complex tear types.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

The effectiveness of microfracture augmentation on the wall of femoral condyle in meniscal healing among patients with meniscus tears after sports injury

Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature

Microfracture for medium size to large knee chondral defects has limited long-term efficacy: A systematic review

The Impact of Bone Marrow Venting Augmentation on Knee Functions in the Repair of Vertical/Longitudinal Meniscus Tears: A Triple Comparison

High-impact athletics after knee articular cartilage repair: a prospective evaluation of the microfracture technique

Surgical treatment of complex meniscus tear and disease: state of the art

How to Improve Meniscal Repair through Biological Augmentation: A Narrative Review

Microfracture Versus a Porcine-Derived Collagen-Augmented Chondrogenesis Technique for Treating Knee Cartilage Defects: Results at Midterm Follow-up

An Investigation on the Clinical Outcome of Full-thickness Knee Articular Chondral Defects Repaired by Arthroscopic Microfracture Technique

The effect of meniscal repair on strength deficits 6 months after ACL reconstruction

Long-term outcome after meniscal repair

Mid-Term Outcomes of Microfracture for the Treatment of Focal, Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects Isolated to the Humeral Head

Arthroscopic Microfrature for Articular Cartilage Damage of the Knee

Meniscal Repair with ArthroZheal® an Autologous Bioactive Fibrin Scaffold. A New Technique and Treatment Option

Particulated Costal Allocartilage With Microfracture Versus Microfracture Alone for Knee Cartilage Defects: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Participant- and Rater-Blinded Study

Application of exposure enhancement technique combined with femoral condyle pushing technique in repairing the posterior horn of the medial meniscus under knee arthroscopy

Repair of bucket handle meniscus tears improves patient outcomes versus partial meniscectomy at the time of ACL reconstruction

Does progress in microfracture techniques necessarily translate into clinical effectiveness?

Platelet-rich Plasma in Meniscal Repair: Does Augmentation Improve Surgical Outcomes?

Microfracture for Acetabular Chondral Defects in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement

Meniscus Graft Augmentation for a Midsubstance Tear of the Medial Collateral Ligament During Total Knee Arthroplasty