What Is the Adequate PRP Dose for an Effective Treatment? An In Vitro Experimental Study on the Skin

Reply: Comparison of Two Anticoagulants for Pain Associated with Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections

We read the letter titled "Comparison of Two Anticoagulants for Pain Associated with Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections" authored by Pensato et al. in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. The authors emphasized an important point. PRP treatments have a lot of variables; preparation method, application, amount of PRP injections, and content (such as number of platelet concentration, presence of leucocytes, and pH). However, in our study, we focused on the pain of injections. We showed that there is a pain difference by using different anticoagulants during PRP preparation, but we did not investigate for possible reason of this pain difference. The use of different anticoagulants may have caused changes in the content, and these alterations could be responsible for the variation in pain. Researches could be done to investigate the reason and the physiology of this effect.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy about its benefits for patients with Achilles tendinopathy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether platelet-rich plasma injections can improve outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical CD-ROM, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal databases to identify randomised controlled clinical trials that compared the efficacy of PRP injection in patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) versus placebo, published between 1 January 1966 and 1 December 2022. Review Manager 5.4.1 software was used for the statistical analysis, and the Jadad score was used to assess the included literature. Only 8 of the 288 articles found met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our work suggests that: The PRP treatment group had a slightly higher VISA-A score than the placebo group at 6 weeks [MD = 1.92, 95% CI (-0.54, 4.38), I² = 34%], at 12 weeks [MD = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.65 3.05), I² = 60%], and 24 weeks [MD = 2.75, 95% CI (-2.76, 8.26), I² = 87%]). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The Achilles tendon thickness was higher at 12 weeks of treatment in the PRP treatment group compared to the control group [MD = 0.34, 95% CI (-0.04, 0.71), p = 0.08], but the difference was not statistically significant. The VAS-improvement results showed no significant difference at 6 and 24 weeks between the two groups, respectively (MD = 6.75, 95% CI = (-6.12, 19.62), I² = 69%, p = 0.30), and (MD = 10.46, 95% CI = (-2.44 to 23.37), I² = 69%, p = 0.11). However, at 12 weeks of treatment, the PRP injection group showed a substantial VAS improvement compared to the control group (MD = 11.30, 95% CI = (7.33 to 15.27), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001). The difference was statistically significant. The return to exercise rate results showed a higher return to exercise rate in the PRP treatment group than the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.87, 1.42), p = 0.40]; the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

There is no proof that PRP injections can enhance patient functional and clinical outcomes for Achilles tendinopathy. Augmenting the frequency of PRP injections may boost the outcomes, and additionally, more rigorous designs and standardised clinical randomised controlled trials are needed to produce more reliable and accurate results.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Facial Rejuvenation: Myth or Reality?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) rejuvenation's efficacy has been reported by numerous uncontrolled clinical case studies of inconsistent quality rather than large randomized and placebo-controlled trials. It was suggested that PRP could be considered as a valid anti-aging and rejuvenation treatment modality. The current literature review summarizes available evidence so far described in the literature with special critical attention to higher quality comparative studies published over the last 10 years. The few studies that could be retrieved and included in this review documented less favorable results. So far, there is no international consensus on clinical PRP use for esthetic rejuvenation. Whether a mix of growth factors does in fact generate a clinically significant more youthful look and whether PRP injections result in comparable or better rejuvenation than what can be expected from other simpler non-surgical modalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The effect of platelet-rich plasma injection on chronic Achilles tendinopathy and acute Achilles tendon rupture

Several clinical trials exploring the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) or Achilles tendinopathy (AT) have been published. However, current evidence is limited to small-sized trials. This study aims to evaluate whether PRP improves the outcomes of ATR or AT. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PRP injection versus placebo for ATR or AT. Eleven studies with 574 patients were included. Quantitative synthesis suggested that compared with placebo, AT patients in PRP group had higher VISA-A score improvement at six-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) = 2.64; 95% CI) = 1.12 to 4.15). However, there was no significant difference between two groups for VISA-A score improvement at three-month follow-up (MD = 0.93; 95% CI = -2.75 to 4.62), or 6-month follow-up (MD = 5.46; 95% CI = -1.19 to 12.11). In ATR patients, quantitative synthesis suggested that no significant difference was seen between PRP and control group at 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up. In addition, no significant difference was detected between the two groups in improving tendon thickness and pain for AT patients, and no significant difference was seen in improving heel-rise work, maximum heel-rise height, dorsal and plantar flexion, rate of returning to sports activities, and complication for ATR patients. To conclude, no evidence indicates that PRP injection can improve the patient-reported/clinical/functional outcomes of AT or ATR. The increasing times of PRP injection could improve the outcomes, and further clinical randomized controlled trials are expected to be conducted to verify this hypothesis.