富血小板血浆注射在前交叉韧带重建中的作用：随机对照试验的Meta分析
简介
该Meta分析纳入23项研究（含19项随机对照试验、1072例患者），比较ACL重建术中应用富血小板血浆（PRP）与对照组的临床及影像学结果。结果显示，PRP组在术后6个月和12个月的VAS评分及术后6个月的Lysholm、Tegner评分方面呈短期改善，约半数影像学评估显示PRP可促进移植物成熟与整合，但未见长期优势。作者认为，PRP对ACL重建术后短期结…
英文摘要
Purpose: To critically evaluate the role or effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. Method: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective evaluations, Lysholm score, Tegner score, anterior knee laxity, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Kujala score, Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale, proprioception, isokinetic strength, and physical examination tests (anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift tests). Radiological outcomes encompassed measures obtained via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), X-ray, and ultrasound. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05, and all analyses were performed using R software (version 4.1.3). Results: A total of 23 studies, including 19 randomized controlled trials, met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1072 patients overall. The meta-analysis showed significant differences between PRP group and non-PRP group with regard to VAS score at 6- and 12-month follow-up, Lysholm score at 6-month follow-up, and Tegner score at 6-month follow-up. Meta-regression showed that the two group differences in VAS score changed significantly with follow-up time (p < 0.01). In terms of radiological findings, about half of the assessments favored PRP to facilitate the graft maturation and integration at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: PRP application in ACL reconstruction compared with non-PRP, may produce short-term but not long-term clinical outcomes such as VAS score, Lysholm score and Tegner score. While some short-term statistical differences exist, their magnitude and durability do not yet justify routine clinical adoption of PRP in ACL reconstruction. Larger samples and higher-quality studies are needed to support our results and further explore the advantages of PRP in other aspects. Level of evidence: Level II.