Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been utilized as adjunctive therapy in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, there is currently limited research available on the efficacy of PRP in arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Purpose:

This study aimed to perform a cross-sectional analysis of overlapping meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with and without PRP to assist clinicians in assessing the most reliable evidence and formulating treatment recommendations accordingly.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

Under PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, comprehensive searches of meta-analyses were performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until June 1, 2024, and found 63 studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence instruments. Data extraction from the included meta-analyses was independently performed by 2 reviewers. The Jadad decision algorithm was employed to identify meta-analyses with the most robust evidence.

Results:

This study included 5 meta-analyses. These meta-analyses had AMSTAR scores ranging from 7 to 9, with a mean of 8. The most reliable evidence, assessed by the Jadad algorithm, included 8 randomized controlled trials and involved 566 patients. It showed that the short-term (≤12 months after surgery) retear rate and visual analog scale score were significantly lower in those with PRP than in those without PRP. The short-term Constant score, short-term University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and long-term (>12 months after surgery) UCLA score were significantly higher in the PRP group, especially in single-row fixation.

Conclusion:

Our study demonstrates that the most reliable evidence suggests that PRP injections can be recommended as adjunctive therapy in single-row repair for enhanced short-term outcomes. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are imperative to increase the strength of evidence.

Keywords

platelet-rich plasma rotator cuff repair meta-analysis

Rotator cuff tears are prevalent tendon injuries that lead to enduring shoulder pain and restricted mobility. When nonoperative treatment is ineffective, surgical repair is the primary approach,^15,36 offering favorable outcomes, particularly for full-thickness tears.^16,34,45 Despite ongoing advancements in instrumentation and surgical techniques, the postoperative retear rate remains notably high, ranging from 8% to 94%.^{7,11,16,23,30} Additionally, pain and weakness are common concerns after arthroscopic repair and can significantly affect patients’ daily activities. To address this, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been explored as adjunctive therapy in rotator cuff repair.^20,24,31,50

PRP was initially reported for therapeutic purposes in the 1980s.¹⁹ It is a natural concentration of platelets obtained through the centrifugation of autologous whole blood. PRP is known to reduce inflammation and enhance healing by releasing various cytokines and growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor, insulin-like growth factor, transforming growth factor–β, and platelet-derived growth factor.^39,46,47 The efficacy of PRP has been validated through basic science and animal experiments.^{5,25,29,35,42} Yet, several clinical trials and meta-analyses on PRP in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair have produced incongruous results.^{4,6,12,13,28,41,50,53-55} The inconsistent interpretations from these studies leave clinicians puzzled.

This study addresses the uncertainty by assessing the methodology and reporting quality of intersecting meta-analyses. Cross-sectional analyses of meta-analyses are crucial for decision-makers to optimize treatment strategies by examining overlapping reviews on the same topic.^2,3,38,52 The objective of this study was to aid clinicians in evaluating the most reliable evidence from meta-analyses so that they can decide whether to use PRP during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We hypothesized that PRP injections can be recommended as adjunctive therapy in arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Methods

Literature Search

The design of this study is consistent with similar previously published studies and adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.^2,3,38,52 There were 2 reviewers (X.L. and Z.X.) who independently conducted thorough searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 1, 2024, using keywords such as “arthroscopic,”“rotator cuff tear,”“systematic review,”“meta-analysis,”“platelet-rich plasma,” and “PRP.” We filtered the search results to include only meta-analyses and found 63 studies. The initial screening process included evaluating titles and abstracts, with full texts reviewed when needed. Additionally, references from the included studies were checked, and a manual search was conducted to ensure all pertinent studies were identified. Any discrepancies were resolved through a discussion, with the involvement of a third reviewer (H.T.) when necessary.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: meta-analyses (1) published in English that exclusively included randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) focusing on arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; (3) aimed to compare repair with PRP versus repair without PRP; and (4) reporting ≥1 outcome measure, such as the retear rate or visual analog scale. Excluded were narrative reviews, meeting abstracts, case reports, and editorials. Studies involving patients with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, those with inadequate follow-up (<12 months), or those with a history of injuries or surgery to the same shoulder were also excluded.

Data Extraction

The same 2 reviewers (X.L. and Z.X.) independently extracted data from the included meta-analyses. The collected data encompassed details such as the first author, publication date, search databases, date of the latest literature search, language restrictions, primary study design, number of trials included, software utilized for analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary, publication bias analysis, conflict of interest disclosure, I² value, and meta-analysis findings. Outcomes in the studies were evaluated at ≤12 months after surgery and >12 months after surgery.^50,54 Any discrepancies were resolved through a discussion, with a third reviewer (H.T.) involved when necessary.

Quality Assessment

Again, 2 reviewers (X.L. and Z.X.) independently evaluated the methodological quality of the meta-analyses using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence⁵¹ and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)⁴³ instruments. The AMSTAR is known for its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in assessing systematic reviews.⁴⁴ Any disagreements were resolved through a discussion, with the involvement of a third reviewer (H.T.) when required.

Assessment of Heterogeneity

The I² statistic quantifies the proportion of total variation attributed to heterogeneity, generating values between 0% and 100%. An I² value of 0% denotes no observed heterogeneity, with higher values indicating greater levels of heterogeneity.²⁷ Per the Cochrane Handbook, an I² value ≤50% suggests acceptable heterogeneity across studies in a systematic review or meta-analysis.²⁶ When significant heterogeneity was present among studies for a variable, we recorded whether the included meta-analyses explored its source. Additionally, we documented whether these studies performed sensitivity analyses and evaluated publication bias.

Application of Jadad Decision Algorithm

Overall, 3 reviewers (S.Y., B.Z., and T.L.) independently analyzed the sources of discrepancies among the meta-analyses using the Jadad decision algorithm and came to a consensus. Discrepancies could stem from variations in clinical queries, inclusion and exclusion criteria, methods of data extraction, assessments of study quality, techniques for data pooling, and statistical approaches for data synthesis. The algorithm facilitated the identification of the most reliable meta-analyses and enabled the formulation of recommendations even in the presence of conflicting outcomes.^22,32,56

Results

Literature Search

Figure 1 outlines the study selection process. Among the 63 records reviewed, 5 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria for this cross-sectional analysis.^12,50,53-55 The characteristics of these meta-analyses are outlined in Table 1. These publications spanned from 2015 to 2020, with each meta-analysis encompassing 5 to 15 primary trials (Table 2), all of which were RCTs. Xiao etal⁵³ conducted the meta-analysis with the highest number of primary studies. Yang etal⁵⁴ conducted the most recent meta-analysis, while Zhao etal⁵⁵ conducted the earliest one.

Figure 1.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of study selection.

Table 1

Characteristics of Meta-analyses^a

First Author	Year	Journal	Impact Factor	Date of Last Literature Search	No. of Included RCTs	No. of Patients
Wang⁵⁰	2019	PLoS One	3.7	September 2018	8	566
Yang⁵⁴	2020	Sci Rep	4.6	February 2020	7	541
Xiao⁵³	2016	Int J Clin Exp Med	0.2	February 2016	15	799
Cai¹²	2015	J Shoulder Elbow Surg	3.0	January 2015	5	303
Zhao⁵⁵	2015	Arthroscopy	4.7	September 2013	9	464

RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2

Primary Studies Included in Meta-analyses

First Author (Year)	Wang⁵⁰ (2019)	Yang⁵⁴ (2020)	Xiao⁵³ (2016)	Cai¹² (2015)	Zhao⁵⁵ (2015)
Malavolta (2018)		+
Ebert (2017)	+
Zhang (2016)	+	+
Flury (2016)	+	+
Pandey (2016)	+	+
Jo (2015)	+	+	+
Wang (2015)			+
Hak (2015)			+
Malavolta (2014)	+	+	+	+
Zumstein (2014)			+
Werthel (2014)			+
Jo (2013)	+	+	+	+	+
Antuna (2013)			+		+
Ruiz-Moneo (2013)			+		+
Weber (2013)			+	+	+
Gumina (2012)			+		+
Rodeo (2012)			+		+
Randelli (2011)	+		+	+	+
Márquez (2011)			+		+
Castricini (2011)			+	+	+

Search Methodology

There were 2 meta-analyses that imposed no language restrictions,^53,55 while this information was not specified in the remaining meta-analyses. Only Zhao etal⁵⁵ conducted a search for gray literature. All meta-analyses utilized PubMed and Embase as their search databases, but there was variability in the utilization of the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. Specific search methodologies are delineated in Table 3.

Table 3

Search Methodology of Meta-analyses^a

First Author (Year)	Restriction of Publication Language	Restriction of Publication Type	Database
First Author (Year)	Restriction of Publication Language	Restriction of Publication Type	PubMed	Embase	Cochrane Library	Google Scholar	Web of Science
Wang⁵⁰ (2019)	NA	Yes	+	+	+
Yang⁵⁴ (2020)	NA	Yes	+	+	+	+
Xiao⁵³ (2016)	No	Yes	+	+	+	+	+
Cai¹² (2015)	NA	Yes	+	+			+
Zhao⁵⁵ (2015)	No	No	+	+	+

NA, not available.

Methodological Quality

As outlined in Table 4, the meta-analyses included were classified as level 2 evidence based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence instrument. All meta-analyses employed RevMan for data analysis. The GRADE method was utilized by Wang etal⁵⁰ and Zhao etal.⁵⁵ AMSTAR scores varied from 7 to 9, with a mean of 8 (Table 5). The meta-analysis authored by Wang etal⁵⁰ attained the highest quality rating.

Table 4

Methodological Quality of Meta-analyses^a

First Author (Year)	Design of Included Studies	Level of Evidence	Software	GRADE Method	Sensitivity Analysis
Wang⁵⁰ (2019)	RCT	2	RevMan	Yes	Yes
Yang⁵⁴ (2020)	RCT	2	RevMan	No	No
Xiao⁵³ (2016)	RCT	2	RevMan	No	Yes
Cai¹² (2015)	RCT	2	RevMan	No	No
Zhao⁵⁵ (2015)	RCT	2	RevMan	Yes	Yes

GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 5

AMSTAR Scores of Meta-analyses^a

	Wang⁵⁰ (2019)	Yang⁵⁴ (2020)	Xiao⁵³ (2016)	Cai¹² (2015)	Zhao⁵⁵ (2015)
1. Was an a priori design provided?	1	1	1	1	0
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?	1	1	1	1	1
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?	1	1	1	0	1
4. Was the status of publication (ie, gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion?	0	0	0	0	1
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?	1	1	1	1	1
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?	1	1	1	1	1
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?	1	1	0	1	1
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	1	0	0	0	0
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?	1	1	1	1	1
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?	0	0	1	1	0
11. Was the conflict of interest stated?	1	1	1	0	1
Total score	9	8	8	7	8

AMSTAR, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews.

Assessment of Heterogeneity

All the meta-analyses included evaluated heterogeneity, with the I² values detailed in Table 6. There were 3 meta-analyses that conducted sensitivity analyses focusing on methodological quality (Table 4).^50,53,55

Table 6

I ² Values of Variables in Meta-analyses^a

	Wang⁵⁰ (2019)	Yang⁵⁴ (2020)	Xiao⁵³ (2016)	Cai¹² (2015)	Zhao⁵⁵ (2015)
Retear rate		0%	41%		43%
Retear rate (single-row)		17%
Retear rate (double-row)		0%
Retear rate at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%
Retear rate (single-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	NA
Retear rate (double-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%
Retear rate at >12 mo after surgery	0%
Retear rate (single-row) at >12 mo after surgery	NA
Retear rate (double-row) at >12 mo after surgery	0%
Constant score				0%	0%
Constant score at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%	25%
Constant score (single-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
Constant score (double-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
Constant score at >12 mo after surgery	0%	0%	0%
Constant score (single-row) at >12 mo after surgery	23%	0%
Constant score (double-row) at >12 mo after surgery	0%	NA
UCLA score				60%	0%
UCLA score at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%	47%
UCLA score (single-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	25%	0%
UCLA score (double-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
UCLA score at >12 mo after surgery	12%	0%	58%
UCLA score (single-row) at >12 mo after surgery	12%	0%
UCLA score (double-row) at >12 mo after surgery	NA	NA
DASH score at ≤12 mo after surgery	32%	30%	NA
DASH score (single-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	NA	NA
DASH score (double-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	32%	30%
DASH score (single-row) at >12 mo after surgery	0%
DASH score (double-row) at >12 mo after surgery	0%
VAS score at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	4%	0%
VAS score (single-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
VAS score (double-row) at ≤12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
VAS score at >12 mo after surgery	0%	0%	NA
VAS score (single-row) at >12 mo after surgery	0%	0%
VAS score (double-row) at >12 mo after surgery		NA
SST score				0%
ASES score				0%
Failure-to-heal rate				0%
Complications	NA		0%		NA
Repair integrity or intact repair rate			0%

ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; NA, not available; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; VAS, visual analog scale.

Jadad Decision Algorithm

The combined findings of the studies included are depicted in Figure 2. The Jadad decision algorithm was utilized to ascertain the most reliable evidence among the 5 meta-analyses included. Despite differences in the selection of primary studies, all meta-analyses addressed the same research question. The algorithm assessed the methodological quality of primary trials, individual patient data analysis, publication status, and language restrictions. In the end, the meta-analysis conducted by Wang etal⁵⁰ was determined to be of the highest quality based on the Jadad decision algorithm (Figure 3). This particular meta-analysis concluded that PRP injections effectively enhanced short-term (≤12 months after surgery) outcomes after arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, indicating superior clinical results with PRP in single-row fixation compared with other fixation methods.

Figure 2.

Results of the included meta-analyses. ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; VAS, visual analog scale.

Figure 3.

Jadad decision algorithm.

Discussion

The major findings of our study demonstrated that the meta-analysis by Wang etal⁵⁰ was of the highest quality based on the Jadad decision algorithm among the included meta-analyses. This analysis showed that the short-term (≤12 months after surgery) retear rate and visual analog scale score were significantly lower in those with PRP than in those without PRP, while the short-term Constant score, short-term University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and long-term (>12 months after surgery) UCLA score were significantly higher in the PRP group, especially in single-row fixation. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first cross-sectional analysis of overlapping meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without PRP.

The retear rate serves as a crucial metric in the treatment of rotator cuff tears, with inadequate tendon healing being a recognized factor in the occurrence of retears.¹⁰ Tendon healing progresses through 3 stages: inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.⁴⁹ Previous research has demonstrated that PRP can expedite wound healing by stimulating cell proliferation and differentiation,^1,8,17,33 hence decreasing the short-term retear rate. Noteworthy improvements in short-term outcomes, including the Constant score, UCLA score, and DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score, were observed in patients. Based on these results, substantial short-term therapeutic benefits were evident for patients, enabling early-stage functional exercises to mitigate severe joint stiffness.

In contrast to the findings of Wang etal,⁵⁰ some researchers^12,53,55 revealed no significant differences between groups in the retear rate, Constant score, and UCLA score. This lack of distinction may stem from their focus on long-term outcomes during data extraction. Wang etal’s⁵⁰ study demonstrated significant short-term therapeutic benefits but no marked long-term efficacy differences. Similar conclusions were drawn by Yang etal.⁵⁴ Previous research has suggested that the long-term effect of PRP might be mitigated by the patient’s inherent healing capacity.^18,21,37,40 Furthermore, tendon recovery to maximum strength typically occurs within 12 months after the injury,⁹ potentially explaining why the efficacy of PRP application is less pronounced at long-term follow-up.

The efficacy of PRP injections varied across different surgical methods. Subgroup analyses revealed a notable effect of PRP in single-row fixation on both short-term Constant and UCLA scores, whereas only the short-term Constant score was influenced in double-row fixation. The limited auxiliary efficacy of PRP injections in double-row repair may be attributed to the stronger fixation strength with this technique, reducing gap formation and ensuring mechanical stability throughout the healing process.⁵⁴ Therefore, PRP injections can be recommended as adjunctive therapy in single-row repair.

The size of the tear plays a crucial role in rotator cuff healing.^14,48 Because of insufficient studies reporting these outcomes, most research did not conduct subgroup analyses based on tear size. Cai etal¹² observed a notably lower failure-to-heal rate in the PRP group for mild-to-moderate tears compared with the control group; however, no difference was detected for severe-to-massive tears.

This study’s strengths lie in its emphasis on reviewing the highest quality of evidence by 2 independent reviewers. Additionally, the study excelled in determining optimal results through the utilization of a specific decision algorithm. The study also has some limitations. First, the literature search was restricted to English-language articles, leading to the exclusion of non-English studies, despite thorough searches across multiple databases. Second, our findings are constrained by the quality and inherent limitations of the included meta-analyses. Third, the follow-up duration in the included meta-analyses is short. Few meta-analyses, except for that by Wang etal,⁵⁰ discuss outcomes >24 months after surgery. Finally, even with 3 reviewers independently analyzing the selected meta-analyses, the bias is unavoidable in the application of the algorithm.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the most reliable evidence suggests that PRP injections can be recommended as adjunctive therapy in single-row repair for enhanced short-term outcomes. Further high-quality RCTs are imperative to increase the strength of evidence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their colleagues for their cooperation with this study. They also thank the reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions.

Final revision submitted December 19, 2024; accepted January 21, 2025.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Support for this study was received from the Beijing Tongzhou District Science and Technology Plan Project (KJ2023CX067). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Ethical approval was not sought for the present study.

References

Abrams

Frank

Fortier

Cole

BJ.

Platelet-rich plasma for articular cartilage repair. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2013;21(4):213-219.

Azzam

Ghozy

Elswedy

, et al. Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Radiol Open. 2023;10:100460.

Azzam

Ghozy

Kallmes

, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy alone for acute ischemic stroke: evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses. J Neurointerv Surg. 2023;15(1):34-38.

Barber

Hrnack

Snyder

Hapa

Rotator cuff repair healing influenced by platelet-rich plasma construct augmentation. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(8):1029-1035.

Beck

Evans

Tonino

Yong

Callaci

JJ.

The biomechanical and histologic effects of platelet-rich plasma on rat rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(9):2037-2044.

Bergeson

Tashjian

Greis

, et al. Effects of platelet-rich fibrin matrix on repair integrity of at-risk rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(2):286-293.

Boileau

Brassart

Watkinson

, et al. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1229-1240.

Bosch

van Schie

de Groot

, et al. Effects of platelet-rich plasma on the quality of repair of mechanically induced core lesions in equine superficial digital flexor tendons: a placebo-controlled experimental study. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(2):211-217.

Brumitt

Cuddeford

Current concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation to strength and conditioning. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(6):748-759.

10.

Burkhart

IK.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(6):333-346.

11.

Burks

Crim

Brown

Fink

Greis

PE.

A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing arthroscopic single- and double-row rotator cuff repair: magnetic resonance imaging and early clinical evaluation. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):674-682.

12.

Cai

Zhang

Lin

XJ.

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(12):1852-1859.

13.

Charousset

Zaoui

Bellaïche

Piterman

Does autologous leukocyte-platelet-rich plasma improve tendon healing in arthroscopic repair of large or massive rotator cuff tears?

Arthroscopy. 2014;30(4):428-435.

14.

Cho

Rhee

YG.

The factors affecting the clinical outcome and integrity of arthroscopically repaired rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1(2):96-104.

15.

Coghlan

Buchbinder

Green

Johnston

Bell

SN.

Surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2008(1):CD005619.

16.

Cole

McCarty

3rd Kang

, et al. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prospective functional outcome and repair integrity at minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):579-585.

17.

de Mos

van der Windt

Jahr

, et al. Can platelet-rich plasma enhance tendon repair? A cell culture study. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(6):1171-1178.

18.

Ebert

Wang

Smith

, et al. A midterm evaluation of postoperative platelet-rich plasma injections on arthroscopic supraspinatus repair: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(13):2965-2974.

19.

Ferrari

Zia

Valbonesi

, et al. A new technique for hemodilution, preparation of autologous platelet-rich plasma and intraoperative blood salvage in cardiac surgery. Int J Artif Organs. 1987;10(1):47-50.

20.

Filardo

Di Matteo

Kon

Merli

Marcacci

Platelet-rich plasma in tendon-related disorders: results and indications. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(7):1984-1999.

21.

Flury

Rickenbacher

Schwyzer

, et al. Does pure platelet-rich plasma affect postoperative clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(8):2136-2146.

22.

Jia

Zhou

Liu

FX.

Surgical and non-surgical treatment for 3-part and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(3):356-365.

23.

Galatz

Ball

Teefey

Middleton

Yamaguchi

The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(2):219-224.

24.

Han

Zhu

, et al. Is platelet-rich plasma an ideal biomaterial for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):183.

25.

Hapa

Cakıcı

Kükner

, et al. Effect of platelet-rich plasma on tendon-to-bone healing after rotator cuff repair in rats: an in vivo experimental study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2012;46(4):301-307.

26.

Higgins

Green

. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org. Accessed April 15, 2019.

27.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

DG.

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.

28.

Kim

Yoon

, et al. Does platelet-rich plasma accelerate recovery after rotator cuff repair? A prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(10):2082-2090.

29.

Kim

Yoon

Shin

Platelet-rich plasma stimulates cell proliferation and enhances matrix gene expression and synthesis in tenocytes from human rotator cuff tendons with degenerative tears. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1035-1045.

30.

Lafosse

Brzoska

Toussaint

Gobezie

The outcome and structural integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with use of the double-row suture anchor technique: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 2 Pt 2):275-286.

31.

Mao

Zhan

YJ.

The efficacy and safety of platelet-rich fibrin for rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):202.

32.

Mascarenhas

Chalmers

Sayegh

, et al. Is double-row rotator cuff repair clinically superior to single-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(9):1156-1165.

33.

McCarrel

Fortier

Temporal growth factor release from platelet-rich plasma, trehalose lyophilized platelets, and bone marrow aspirate and their effect on tendon and ligament gene expression. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(8):1033-1042.

34.

Millett

Warth

Dornan

Lee

Spiegl

UJ.

Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(4):586-597.

35.

Muto

Kokubu

Mifune

, et al. Platelet-rich plasma protects rotator cuff-derived cells from the deleterious effects of triamcinolone acetonide. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(6):976-982.

36.

Wolf

Hall

Levy

Marx

RG.

Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:52-63.

37.

Pandey

Bandi

Madi

, et al. Does application of moderately concentrated platelet-rich plasma improve clinical and structural outcome after arthroscopic repair of medium-sized to large rotator cuff tear? A randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(8):1312-1322.

38.

Panic

Leoncini

de Belvis

Ricciardi

Boccia

Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83138.

39.

Chen

Jiang

, et al. Local delivery of autologous platelet in collagen matrix simulated in situ articular cartilage repair. Cell Transplant. 2009;18(10):1161-1169.

40.

Randelli

Arrigoni

Ragone

Aliprandi

Cabitza

Platelet rich plasma in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective RCT study, 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):518-528.

41.

Randelli

Arrigoni

Cabitza

Volpi

Maffulli

Autologous platelet rich plasma for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(20-22):1584-1589.

42.

Sadoghi

Lohberger

Aigner

, et al. Effect of platelet-rich plasma on the biologic activity of the human rotator-cuff fibroblasts: a controlled in vitro study. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(8):1249-1253.

43.

Shea

Grimshaw

Wells

, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

44.

Shea

Hamel

Wells

, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013-1020.

45.

Sugaya

Maeda

Matsuki

Moriishi

Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair: a prospective outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):953-960.

46.

Sun

Feng

Zhang

Chen

Cheng

XG.

The regenerative effect of platelet-rich plasma on healing in large osteochondral defects. Int Orthop. 2010;34(4):589-597.

47.

Szwedowski

Szczepanek

Paczesny

, et al. The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the intra-articular microenvironment in knee osteoarthritis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(11).

48.

Tashjian

Hollins

Kim

, et al. Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2435-2442.

49.

Thomopoulos

Parks

Rifkin

Derwin

KA.

Mechanisms of tendon injury and repair. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(6):832-839.

50.

Wang

Guo

, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0220392.

51.

Wright

Swiontkowski

Heckman

JD.

Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(1):1-3.

52.

Lin

, et al. Is surgical intervention more effective than non-surgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt A):305-311.

53.

Xiao

Luo

Sun

, et al. Efficacy and clinical outcomes of platelet-rich plasma for arthroscopic repair rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(10):19831-19840.

54.

Yang

Liao

, et al. Effects of applying platelet-rich plasma during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):17171.

55.

Zhao

Jiang

, et al. Platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):125-135.

56.

Zhao

Yang

Ding

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2019;14(12):e0226848.

Platelet-Rich Plasma in Arthroscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Overlapping Meta-analyses

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Literature Search

Eligibility Criteria

Data Extraction

Quality Assessment

Assessment of Heterogeneity

Application of Jadad Decision Algorithm

Results

Literature Search

Search Methodology

Methodological Quality

Assessment of Heterogeneity

Jadad Decision Algorithm

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

References