Abstract:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the literature to ascertain the extent to which platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) improved patient outcomes in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with a third author resolving any discrepancies. RCTs comparing PRP or PRF to a control in rotator cuff repair were included. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Clinical outcomes were compared using the risk ratio for dichotomous variables and the mean difference for continuous variables. A P value <.05 was deemed statistically significant.Included in this review are 23 RCTs with 1440 patients. PRP resulted in significantly decreased rates of retear (15.9% versus 29.0%, respectively; P < .0001). Significant results were noted in favor of PRP compared with control based on the Constant score (83.9 versus 81.2, respectively; P = .0006); the University of California, Los Angeles score (31.1 versus 30.2; P < .00001); the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (87.3 versus 84.5; P = .04); and the visual analog scale score (1.3 versus 1.6; P = .01). PRF resulted in an improved Constant score (80.1 versus 80.0, respectively; P = .04) compared with control.The current evidence shows that using PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair can improve pain levels and functional outcome scores while reducing the retear rate after surgery. PRF injection, on the other hand, improves only the Constant score.II; systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II evidence.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Has Better Results for Retear Rate, Pain, and Outcome Than Platelet-Rich Fibrin after Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials